In line
On 4/23/2019 12:39 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
Good comments overall. But:
Appeals are generally taken against final decisions rather than just
hanging there loose to be applied against something that might not
actually have had a formal appraisal and decision.
WRT to "protect its own" - if there's a problem that has enough
consensus of a need for resolution, and the IAB or IESG does not take
action, then you address it at the next Nomcom cycle and remove not
only the problem child, but the folks that didn't act. But I'd be
surprised if we end up with that result. I don't always get along with
the leadership and some actions they've taken over the years annoy the
hell out of me, but for the most part I consider them honorable and
generally good fiduciaries of the IETF process.
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.
There are a few ways of dealing with this - either have a second body
confirm the expulsion - or - my preference - make the expulsion
appealable and use normal appeals process to act as a check and
balance. I don't think it's an unsolvable problem.
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.
To be blunt - I think the "easy to game" argument is a red herring in
all its forms, such argument only given some small amount of life based
on the actual black and white text of the recall process and vivid
imaginations. A bigger problem - IMHO - is the ridiculous amount of
time it would take to process the recall after the petition is
certified. I neither think it would be difficult to got 20 signatures
using the current criteria for something sufficiently serious for a
recall, nor would the IETF fall for any of the various permutations of
sock puppets and trolling and DOS attacks we've discussed in this and
other related threads.
Later, Mike
Keith
