John, > On 23 Apr 2019, at 7:45 am, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > First of all, the one case of near-recall (petitions ready, > process ready to roll) we've had clearly identified a situation > in which the community needed to have some mechanism to remove > an incumbent leader without, e.g., sitting around and waiting > for the next Nomcom cycle. Whether "the leadership" was > concerned about that or not, the possibility wasn't enough to > prevent the problem that put the process in motion. More > importantly, perhaps, let me turn your question around and ask > whether you think it would be a good idea to have our leadership > operate completely without accountability from whenever they are > selected by the Nomcom until their terms are up? Your question seems rhetorical (and somewhat argumentative), but to remove doubt, I'll answer - firmly, no. > I don't think > that a recall mechanism is ideal, but the Nomcom process > probably isn't ideal either and I'd hope that anyone proposing a > reduction in individual accountability would be thinking about > appropriate substitutes. If you reread my message, you'll see I wasn't proposing a reduction in individual accountability; I was trying to establish the extent of the increase in accountability (because even if we keep things at 20 signatures, at least by the maths it's an increase, although good arguments have been put forth that the nature of remote participation means it's less so than at first glance), and its potential impact. > 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. I don't disagree. > 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. I think that in that case, the difference between 10, 20 or even 50 would be immaterial; this community is well-connected. But that goes to the heart of the question -- how do you determine what is in "synch with the community"? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
