Hi John,
At 01:56 PM 25-03-2019, John C Klensin wrote:
Ah. Misunderstanding, not disagreement. The intent of the
changes in RFC 3777 was to make it significantly harder for
someone to start the rather heavy-duty and costly (in community
time if nothing else) recall process if they did not have a
serious complaint. That was specifically intended to discourage
efforts that I would describe as "frivolous", Adrian might
describe as "capricious", and others might described in
The following paragraph could be added at the end of the Security
Considerations section:
Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort. The risk of
frivolous recall petitions is mitigated by setting a threshold
for qualified signatories.
I tried to capture the points which Adrian and you made to provide an
explanation for setting a threshold instead of "anyone".
If that isn't clear enough in the document, I hope you/we would
welcome proposed text.
Please see the text which I suggested above.
I hope not. And, fwiw, two key differences between appeals and
recalls is that the former don't involve the burdens on the
community that setting up a recall committee, etc., do _and_ the
appeal process is intended to accommodate "hey, have you
considered the following issue in making your decision and,
especially if not, please reconsider the decision" situations
rather than any claim of misbehavior. Very different and I
don't think having much to do with each other.
Thanks for elaborating on the differences between the two.
About twice as many as obviously frivolous recall attempts since
3777, i.e., approximately twice zero (although there were a few
threats). One could argue that even the change from "anyone
can initiate" was not justified by history and experience, but
it appeared to many people that the "anyone" provision was just
a problem waiting to happen.
Yes.
I noticed two omissions which affects the proposals. I'll contact
you off-list about that.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
