On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 8:33 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm actually enjoying this more than I should be ...On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:03 PM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 4/18/2019 12:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
>> On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting. I presume it means that the IESG is unanimous, because it only takes one AD to AD sponsor a draft.
> I asked the IESG. I did not get responses from everyone, but of the people who did respond none of them volunteered to AD-sponsor.
In the past, what's worked for dealing with small things is the
formation of a design team to look at the problem and figure out if
there's a document or two to be had. Perhaps that's a better approach
than WG forming BOFs or even trying to find a sponsor for this one
little piece of the problem?And the reason Mike knows this, is that he (and something like the first 10 Nomcom chairs) were on a design team that Russ Housley formed to look at issues that had recurred across Nomcoms, which we don't really have much visibility because there's not a lot of overlap of Nomcom membership over time.The report that design team produced is at https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00.txt. It resulted in most of the updates to RFC 3777 before they were all obsoleted by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7437/.
the issues list.
In that vein, I think it would be useful to get crisp about the
problem statement. It seems to me that this document implicitly makes
two arguments:
- It's too difficult to initiate a recall (because the threshold
is too high and because members of the leadership who might have
special knowledge are excluded) [S 2.1, 2.3]
- It's unfair to exclude remote participants [S 2.2]
I'm not sure how persuaded I am by the second argument, but I think
the overall thrust of the first argument has some merit. However,
I tend to agree with Alissa that the main obstacle isn't so much
the number of people or excluding leadership, but rather the
reputational risk to people of signing the petition, especially
if the recall fails [0].
So, if the idea is to make recalls easier, then it seems to me
that the easiest thing to do would be to make the signatures
on the petition anonymous; the Secretariat can still verify them,
of course, and the recall proceedings themselves would still
be conducted in our usual fashion.
-Ekr
[0] "If you come at the king, you best not miss".
[1] It's also possible to build a system that allows third party
verification that the right number of sigantures were provided
while not identifying the signers, but the amount of crypto
required seems somewhat prohibitive.
Do the right thing, of course :DSpencer
Asa general model, people leave "elected" positions due to term
expiration, resignation, expulsion (not IETF), recall, death, or
disability (partial IETF - self-reporting yes as a resignation,
non-self-reporting no). It may make sense to fill out the full score
card while we're updating the recall process.
Later, Mike
