Hi Keith,
At 08:39 AM 29-03-2019, Keith Moore wrote:
Your concern is valid and should be addressed somehow. But I can't
help but have the impression that this is the least of the issues
facing someone who wishes or needs to participate remotely.
Thanks for the feedback. The issue is about fairness.
I see the recall process as a stopgap measure in case the less
drastic and disruptive measures for ensuring fairness have
failed. If recalls have to be considered more than once every
several years, something else is likely to be wrong.
I did not suggest that recalls have to be considered every year or
every several years.
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?
The I-D is not about an immediate problem.
Is an appeal disruptive? Is the first step of a recall
disruptive? I would not describe them as such. Those procedures are
usually part of a process so that the process is fair and viewed as fair.
The current recall process does not describe the problems for which a
recall is applicable. The I-D doesn't do that either. I don't view
the matter as being about those problems for which a recall may be
the better approach. It is about whether a remote participant, who
satisfies the requirements, is allowed to be a signatory if the case
arises. It has been pointed out in the discussion that a remote
participant could rely on a participant who fulfills the existing
requirements if there is a need for a recall petition to be
signed. Some people might find that approach acceptable. I beg to
differ; that doesn't mean that those people are wrong.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
