Hi Andrew,
At 09:00 AM 27-04-2019, 'Andrew Sullivan' wrote:
Only sort of. It allows registered remote participants to count
(good) but then sets up a rule in which people "have participated
physically or remotely" without defining that term. If ever there
were an opportunity for confusion and arguments over what constitutes
"participation", I'd like to hope that its first official duty would
not be in determining how we pick everyone else to manage the
organization. The existing arrangement is quite clear: you register
for and attend the meetings. The new proposal adds a notion of
participation that is at least in serious need of unpacking.
The draft does not make any change to the section about the Internet
Society President.
There is the following sentence in the Note Well: "By participating
in the IETF, you agree to follow IETF processes and
policies". Signatories are "expected to be familiar with the IETF
processes and procedures, which are readily learned by active
participation ..." It is the up to a signatory to show that he or
she participated in those IETF meetings.
You might do anything at all, of course, and another person might do
something else yet again. The point is that good organizational
procedures intended to be triggered frequently ought to be well
understood. The current draft proposes that 10 random people who sign
up for free remote participation 3 times and "participate" in some
unspecified way can hold the entire IETF so-called "leadership" to
ransom, and we have no idea how those demands would be processed. It
seems like the sort of decision that requires careful community
deliberation. I don't see that this document has reached that
threshold.
Please see draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00 as it discusses about
different types of attendees.
From what I recall, it only took one appointee to negatively impact
the work of the administrative support activity. Russ explained why
it was not possible for the body to exercise the recall process option.
There are 10 random persons who choose the so-called "leadership"
each year. The persons do not have to have to participate on this
mailing list even though this is usually the place where IETF
policies are discussed. What is the difference between them and 10
random persons who participate remotely?
Is an accountability mechanism a way to hold the so-called
"leadership" to ransom?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
