Just top-posting - I wonder if doing this process change as an https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933 process experiment (one-year duration) would make people feel better about trying this.
RFC 3933 was intended to let the community try things without having to prove that nothing bad is going to happen after we make a process change.
RFC 3933 was intended to let the community try things without having to prove that nothing bad is going to happen after we make a process change.
Spencer
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 5:27 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the work on this.
I agree with the general idea of lowering the bar for recall petitions.
But some of the discussion seems to overlook that it's an extreme
measure, and one that should normally be made unnecessary by the
regular appeal chain. If we make recalls *too* easy we might be upset
by the amount of distraction they would cause. Some specific comments
follow:
> Abstract
>
> The procedures for initiating a recall specified in RFC 7437 restrict
> signatories to those who are "nomcom qualified".. This document
> suggests those limitations were unanticipated and undesirable side-
> effects and proposes to remove them.
I think the second sentence is untrue, or perhaps it means to say:
This choice limited the signatories in a way that had undesirable
side-effects, and therefore this document changes it.
Then:
> ... It also proposes that...
No, if it's a BCP it doesn't "propose", it "specifies".
> This document is intended to update RFC 7437.
Again, if it's a BCP it doesn't intend, it simply "updates" 7437.
There are several other places in the Introduction and the Rationale
where there is a similar issue - if this text is a BCP that changes
the procedure, all references to the old procedure need to be written
in the past tense.
> 2.2. Eligibility of Remote Participants
>
> In 2017, the IESG set a requirement for the registration of remote
> participants at IETF meetings.
I'd like a citation for that. To what extent was it just a technical
requirement to assist Meetecho setup, and to what extent was it a
policy matter?
Also, as has been pointed out, the act of registering is not
the same as actually participating remotely; it has zero cost to
the registrant and I doubt if anybody checks whether you actually
connect to any sessions. And does passive observation, without
presenting or speaking, count? Does watching the video afterwards
count? So I really don't see remote registration as telling us
much about a person's degree of participation. There are other
proxies for remote participation, like writing drafts or taking
part in email discussions, which IMHO are probably better.
Joke alert: maybe one's position on the "Narten list" should
determine eligibility.
> Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom
> qualified" disenfranchises active remote participants who reside in
> emerging countries as they lack the extensive travel resources
> required to seek redress.
I think the word "disenfranchises" is wrong. It's somewhat political
and emotionally loaded, and is typically used in formal voting
systems; but the IETF doesn't vote. "Excludes" would be factually
accurate and less emotive.
Similarly, remote participants can appeal under RFC2026 (or activate
the anti-harassment rules) and that is the primary method of redress
in the IETF. A recall is rather different - it isn't a matter of redress,
it's a matter of making the IETF work properly.
Also this issue affects many people, not just those from emerging
economies, such as unfunded participants or people unable to travel
for personal reasons.
So I think the text needs to say something much simpler:
Restricting signatories to those who are "nomcom
qualified" excluded active remote participants unable to
travel for whatever reason.
> The "nomcom qualified" requirement for a recall petition is contrary
> to the spirit and one of the goals of the Internet Standards Process
> [RFC2026] about procedures which are intended to be fair
While I might agree, I think this is a distraction and should be deleted.
> 3. Recall petition
.....
>
> At any time, at least 10 members of the IETF community, may request
> by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet Society
> President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member, IETF Trustee
> or IETF LLC Director. All signatories must have registered to attend
> and have participated physically or remotely at least three out of
> the previous five IETF meetings.
I think the reduction to 10 signatories is a good idea.
But, as above: how do we verify remote participation, and why not qualify
people who have simply submitted drafts or been active on mailing lists
during the last two years?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
