Hi Brian,
At 09:26 PM 26-03-2019, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks for the work on this.
Thank you for the review.
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:
There is the following sentence in the -01 (which I have not posted
yet): Setting up a Recall Committee is a costly effort.
> 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.
The suggested change, if I understood it correctly, is to remove
"unanticipated". I went through the archives and I could not find
the discussion where those limitations were anticipated.
Then:
> ... It also proposes that...
No, if it's a BCP it doesn't "propose", it "specifies".
Yes. I'll change that word.
> This document is intended to update RFC 7437.
Again, if it's a BCP it doesn't intend, it simply "updates" 7437.
Ok.
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.
The I-D was written to propose changes to a BCP. I agree that it
should be in the past tense if what is being proposed is approved.
> 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?
Thank you for raising this issue. There is a message from the IETF
Chair at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ARWs2NaG1mOh2a6In4hgTtfH9vI
about a proposed change in requirement for remote
participants. There was another message from Ms Cooper at
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nxDHpprMppNQPKkA18FcZ75_GfM
You raised a good point. It was not clear at that time whether the
decision was a technical one or a policy matter. The sentence from
the I-D does not say anything about the decision being a policy
matter. The matter would be handled by the IAOC if it was just a
technical requirement. The IAOC minutes for that period do not show
any discussion about assisting the Meetecho setup.
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.
Attending a working group session does not necessarily mean
participation. It is similar to physical attendance where a person
can sit in the room and watch the presentations and discussions. The
difference between the two is that the person sitting in the room
paid at least USD 1,000 to be there.
Based on the past discussions about "participation" I would say that
anything which influences a "standards process" decision counts. I
don't think that watching the video afterwards counts as participation.
Joke alert: maybe one's position on the "Narten list" should
determine eligibility.
I commented on two Last Calls last week. I also sent an email to
thank you for responding to a question which I asked. It was a bit
awkward to send those emails as that list does not distinguish
between responses to Last Calls and emails which the IETF would not
view as useful.
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.
One of the definitions for "disenfranchise" (O.E.D) is: "Deprive
(someone) of a right or privilege". Is the word "disenfranchise"
politically incorrect for the IETF Stream?
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.
One of the definitions of "redress" (O.E.D) is: "remedy or set right
(an undesirable or unfair situation)". The section of the draft is
about remote participants not being able to do that. The situation,
currently, is that some remote participants would have to find the
money to attend three out of five meetings to seek a remedy through a
"recall petition". If I understood your point correctly, those
remote participants should only have access to the appeal procedures,
as set in RFC 2026.
Also this issue affects many people, not just those from emerging
economies, such as unfunded participants or people unable to travel
for personal reasons.
Yes.
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.
I don't see any of those participants commenting on the I-D. It will
be difficult for me to provide an answer if anyone claims that the
above text is not true.
> 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.
At this stage it is, in my opinion, useful for the IESG to consider
that as part of its evaluation of the I-D.
I think the reduction to 10 signatories is a good idea.
Thank you.
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?
The above is a good question. There may be a better way to tackle this.
Given that anyone can submit a draft, the barrier may be XML
editing. As for being active on mailing list, does a "+1" count as
"been active"?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
