On 4/22/19 11:32 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Instead, I'd like to propose that we move to an expulsion model for the IAB and IESG where the members of the organizations are able to remove a member under certain circumstances: Behavior inconsistent with a fiduciary (e.g. acting for your company or contracting entity to the detriment of the standards process); behavior that adversely affects the standardization process (IESG) or behavior that adversely affects the general operation of the IAB (e.g. things like harassment); abandonment of the position or lack of communication from the member.
I definitely think it's worth looking at alternative models for removing IAB/IESG members who misbehave. However for your proposal:
a) I suspect there's a risk that an IESG would not support expulsion of a member who had clearly discriminated against a participant out of some kind of prejudice (other than technical judgment), because that IESG wished to protect its own. If nothing else, the perception of such a choice by IESG would harm IETF's reputation and thereby harm its ability to do work. So I think IESG cannot be its own sole watchdog of its members; there must be the possibility for some other "last resort" means of recalling an AD from outside of IESG. Perhaps that could be managed as a kind of an appeal rather than initiating a recall petition as is currently envisioned.
b) On the flip side, there's also some risk that an IESG would seek to marginalize a lone voice within its ranks that argued for sanity against a widely-accepted madness, and use the expulsion process as a way to silence that individual. So I don't think IESG should be able to expel one of its members without external scrutiny as to what justified it. (note that I didn't say _public_ scrutiny.) In such a case, review by the current nomcom might be appropriate.
All of this is tricky to get right though, and we could easily end up with worse (e.g. more easily gamed) than what we have now.
Keith
