Hi John,
At 10:59 AM 25-03-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
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
Ok.
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.
There is the following sentence in Section 7.1 of RFC 7437: "The
Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall
request". Who is going to evaluate whether the persons who signed
the petition made a frivolous request? In my opinion, it is better
to leave it to the Recall Committee look into the request.
There is a threshold for signatories. The minimum number of
signatories ensures that the justification is supported by more than
one person and the primary affiliation restriction ensures that the
persons are not from the same company/organization.
As a comment about "frivolous", it is currently possible for anyone
to appeal a decision. Does the IETF want to make appeals difficult
given that it is possible to file an appeal which might be viewed as frivolous?
The question which could be asked by a non-participant is whether the
first step of the current procedures is there to protect IAB or IESG
management members from being recalled. Has there been any frivolous
recall attempts between RFC 2727 and RFC 3777?
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 ...
Ok.
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.
Ok.
(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.
Ok.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
