Hi Keith,
At 07:10 PM 29-03-2019, Keith Moore wrote:
Just to clarify, by asking "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?" what I was really wondering was whether the interest in
fixing the recall process was indicative of actual problems with
certain individuals (presumably toward remote participants) that
aren't being addressed.
In other words, are people interested in trying to use the recall
process to fix problems that are better addressed in other ways?
Thanks for the clarification. It is not possible to determine
whether remote participants encountered actual problems with some
individuals or whether the problems, if any, are better addressed in
other ways.
I have no direct experience with recalls, but I do have experience
with appeals. They are, in my experience, tremendously time
consuming. They take away time and energy, that could otherwise be
applied to doing technical work, from people who are already
over-burdened. Everyone understands that they're necessary, and
that it's necessary to take them seriously, so that the process is
fair and viewed as fair. That's part of why those handling the
appeal spend so much time and energy - people handling them are
aware that the trust of the community is at stake, so they want to
do a good job. Even though an appeal can significantly impede
progress of unrelated IETF work.
Do appeals have a negative connotation? Some participants might view
it as such. Should the success rate of appeals be used to determine
that? The probability of success depends on several
factors. Anyway, the technical work is carried out within the IETF
and there are rules, as part of standardization, which comes with it.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
