Subramanian,
At this point, I'd prefer to be just one member of the community
and see where this goes rather than having some special status
to decide on things. Jn particular, but without any claim to
special status, everything you've said "yes" to seems fine to
me. Other comments inline below.
--On Monday, March 25, 2019 01:53 -0700 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> At 01:07 AM 25-03-2019, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> Just reading this before breakfast and thus without coffee.
>>
>> It's good work, thanks.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>...
>> Because it comes before the exposition of how many signatures
>> you are proposing, I would add to 2.3 something to the effect
>> of...
>>
>> OLD
>> This
>> document also proposes to decrease the number of
>> signatures required to avoid making it impractical to
>> invoke the first step of the recall procedures.
>> NEW
>> While recognising that some form of barrier is a good
>> thing to prevent capricious use of recall petitions, this
>> document also proposes to decrease the number of
>> signatures required to avoid making it impractical to
>> invoke the first step of the recall procedures.
>> END
> I would like to discuss this one with John. My opinion is
> that it is not a good idea to distinguish between whether a
> recall petition is capricious or not as it may be viewed as
> forming an adverse opinion beforehand. I would look at "some
> form of barrier" in terms of "threshold".
I'm not certain I understand the distinction you are making. As
Appendix A points out, RFC 3777 raised the number of signatures
from one to 20 because of concerns about what I summarized as
frivolous recall attempts and intentional attacks on the system
by people whom others might (retrospectively at least) classify
as trolls or worse. I like "frivolous" better than
"capricious" to summarize that concern, but either is consistent
with the discussions about making recalls sufficiently more
difficult to deter or prevent bad behavior that brought about
the more restrictive issues of 3777.
>...
>> For completeness, I think this document should also note that
>> 7776 made an update to 7437 as follows...
>>
>> 3.1. Recall Petitions Initiated by the Ombudsteam
>>
>> [RFC7776] updates [RFC7437] by allowing the
>> Ombudsteam to form a recall petition on its own and
>> without requiring signatories from the community. This
>> document does not make any change to [RFC7776] or the
>> Ombudsteam procedures and any petition originating from
>> the Ombudsteam shall be treated in all ways like any
>> other recall petition as described in [RFC7437]: that
>> is, the fact of the petition and its signatories (the
>> Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community,
>> and a Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed to
>> complete the Recall Committee process.
>
> RFC 7776 specifies that there is an expectation that the
> Recall Committee will receive a briefing. I gather that is
> the alternative to "a statement of justification" (Section 7.1
> of RFC 7437). I wanted to avoid getting into a discussion of
> RFC 7776. That is why the document is silent about it.
Again, just speaking personally, I think I agree with your
conclusion but perhaps not your reasoning. To the extent to
which this I-D is about tuning the first step in the "normal"
recall procedure and 7776 sets up an alternate/ extraordinary
procedure, the two should be irrelevant to each other. They
would be irrelevant to each other except ...
> On reading your suggestion I noticed that the number of
> signatories is mentioned in RFC 7776. This document proposes
> a second change so that the number is only specified in one
> place; the rationale is make future updates easier.
Well, I'm confident that, had the authors of 7776 had, and
exercised, perfect ability to predict the future, they would not
have repeated details from 7437 that are irrelevant to the
alternate procedure they set up. Two suggestions:
(i) It would not be a bad idea to include, somewhere in this
document, a sentence indicating that RFC 7776 provides an
alternate procedure for initiating a recall. I wouldn't go
further than that but the cross reference might prove helpful to
someone, someday.
(ii) If this draft gets far enough along to be relevant, I think
asking the sponsoring AD, or the IESG generally, for an opinion
as to whether it it worth updating 7776 to remove specific
numbers and any other discussion of qualifications under the
normal procedure and, instead, point to this document and/or RFC
7437.
The latter is consistent with "leave open for now".
>...
best,
john
