On 30-Mar-19 04:39, Keith Moore wrote: .... > So I guess I'm curious - what problems are we having that cause people > to think we need to make recalls easier, and could those problems be > addressed in less disruptive ways? I'm not sure that everybody appreciates the proven power of the normal appeal mechanism, which really does get all four levels' attention: first the WG Chairs, then the AD, and then the IESG (and, sometimes, the IAB). In my experience appeals are taken seriously and are reasonably effective. But this isn't apparent to newer participants. Also, appeals that are handled satisfactorily at WG Chair and AD level are not logged on the web site and may not even be public. However, it's noticeable that we have had quite a lot of appeals (about 40 IESG appeals since 2002 when the log started, and about 20 IAB appeals since 1995), but (iirc) only one recall petition in the 22 years since RFC2027. That does seems a little unbalanced. So I think that lowering the bar for recalls, especially in favour of non-travelling participants, is reasonable. Brian
