On 3/25/19 15:24, S Moonesamy wrote: > 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. We have an existence proof that it is not in fact hard to find enough qualified signatories, since we have done it. Whether or not frivolity is prevented we do not know beyond the counterfactual. > 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
