Hi John,
And, just my opinion, but high thresholds may be appropriate to
large bodies, e.g., legislatures or parliaments, where the
impact of one bad, out-of-control, or retired-in-place actor is
fairly low (even thought the offender's constituents may feel
otherwise). When one has a very small leadership team and no
other accountability mechanisms, it is far more important that
the recall mechanism be effective, usable, and perceived as
fair. There, too, it is worth remembering the IETF's history
where a small leadership group got seriously out of synch with
the community and turned out to be completely unaccountable, a
problem that could be solved only by tearing down our entire
organizational, leadership, and operational structures and
starting over.
+1.
My recollection was that we set the threshold to avoid process DOS attacks. I don’t see why a percentage would be necessary to avoid such an attack. Moreover, in my opinion, we have had several people who at least deserved to have a recall review, and yet it didn’t happen. Each caused a serious problem for the IESG and the community. I won’t speak to the merits of this draft at this time, but I do think we have the current balance wrong.
Eliot |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
