On 4/22/19 6:56 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
On 4/22/2019 3:39 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Regardless of how many (or few) signatures are required, I really
don't think it makes sense any more to use meeting attendance
(physical or virtual) as a criterion for who can sign a petition
[*]. I think it should be some measure of how much a person actually
has invested in helping IETF do work, say by writing or reviewing
documents, chairing a WG, serving on a directorate, IESG, IAB, etc.
Those are the people who are in the best position to evaluate a recall
petition. IETF should pay more attention to doers than goers.
Maybe we should only require 3 such people, but let them be people who
do work.
Keith, you are almost making an argument for seniority, as in "pick
people who are senior enough to have chaired a WG, be nominated to join
a directorate, served in the IESG or IAB." I have no doubt that you will
find people there who are committed to the IETF, but we might have a
problem if only the IETF elite participates in the nomcom or is allowed
to sign petitions against other members of the elite.
It's a valid point (and it occurred to me). But I'm not advocating
making being a "doer" a barrier to "doing" things in IETF, only for
things like recall petitions and nomcoms. And you don't have to be
"elite" at all to have submitted a WG internet-draft; you only have to
have written up an idea and gotten some people to buy into it. In
other words, there should be some ways that non-senior "doers" can qualify.
The alternative is to risk having people with little or no experience in
IETF, making judgments about whether (say) an AD has done his/her job
well. That makes no sense to me.
Keith
