Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group,
At 09:50 AM 18-04-2019, Alissa Cooper wrote:
I can only speak for myself and will let other ADs chime in if they want to.
I think the problem statement definition and the breadth of the
changes to be proposed are intertwined, and require the depth of
discussion we can get through a working group process. The
underlying problem(s) that the draft seeks to address appear broader
than the solutions proposed. Is the statement of the problem that
the IETF process or its governance are unfair to remote
participants? If so, the proposal in this draft is an incomplete
solution to that problem. Is the statement of the problem that the
recall process is dysfunctional because of barriers to using it? If
so, the proposal in this draft is an incomplete solution to that
problem and IMO misses the most compelling reason why recall
petitions are not issued, which is that the perceived reputational
risk to petitioners outweighs the perceived potential gain from
issuing a recall petition.
From what I understand, the governance part of the IETF is done by
the IETF LLC. The draft does not get into IETF LLC matters. A
person conversant with corporate affairs would likely understand the
legal aspects of that.
The proposal does not mention the word "dysfunctional". This is a
sentence from Section 2.2: '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'.
As for reputational risk, does the reputation of a person who can
afford to spend USD 10,000 outweigh the reputation of a person who
actively participates even though he or she does not attend IETF meetings?
The proposal in this draft can also be trivially gamed by a single
or small handful of individuals creating a set of 10 email accounts,
registering them to participate remotely, and having them join
remote sessions. Even if all this would result in is a series of
recall committees being forced to be constituted to deal with recall
petitions that get rejected, this could be a significant tax on our
community. I think analyzing the countervailing benefits of this
proposal against this tax or analyzing the costs and benefits of
doing identity verification to overcome it are important tasks that
would require the kind of discussion a WG can provide, and also
require a clear understanding of what the problem statement is.
Does the above mean that the Internet Engineering Steering Group
(IESG) is aware that BCP 78/79 can be easily "gamed"?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
