Hi Brian, > On 23 Apr 2019, at 6:25 am, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 10 or 20? > > Please remember that the threshold for the normal appeals process, > which can involve up the following in extra work: > WG Chairs, AD, IESG, IAB and ISOC Board > is 1 person, who doesn't even have to be an active participant. > > Has the IETF been drowned by frivolous appeals? No. > > Am I worried about a rush of frivolous recall petitions with SM's > proposed change? No. That's somewhat convincing. > Consider that for remote participants, contacting 9 other people > and persuading them to sign a recall petition is a non-trivial > task, comparable in difficulty to walking around at an IETF meeting > and finding 19 such people. I'd imagine that such a recall petition wouldn't be all-remote, but a mix of remote and in-person participants, but yes. My initial discomfort with decreasing the number of signatories on a recall petition may have been caused by my perception of it as a mechanism to ensure some level of input quality, since Section 7.5 of RFC7437 gives almost no guidance to the recall committee, in contrast to the fairly detailed guidance we give NOMCOMs regarding selection of our leadership. Speculating, I suppose a lot would depend on the recall committee chair; they could choose to run a process that involves input across the community, or they could just focus on the loudest complaints. Is it worth giving some guidance there? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
