Hi Suresh,
At 04:54 PM 24-05-2019, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
I am not talking for the whole IESG but I will
tell you my opinion as a sitting IESG member on
why I did not want to AD sponsor this draft in
its current condition. I think the proposal in
the draft sets the bar too low specifically on
the Section 2.2 front. One of the things that
has kept the recall petitions rare is that that
the people who initiate the petition need to
have some accountability for doing so (I would
call this "skin in the game"? [0] but it does
not translate well across cultures). Otherwise
there will be no bar to filing frivolous
petitions. This brings me to the elephant in the
room. It is fairly trivial for someone to sign
up 10 remote participant identities to initiate
a recall petition without incurring much effort,
for the *sole purpose* of starting a recall
petition. I would like to see some suggestions
as to how we can ensure that this would not happen.
Thank you for sharing your opinion openly.
There isn't a "skin in the game" hurdle for
appeals. It is trivial to file five frivolous
appeals and get 15 Area Directors to respond to the appeals.
There is the following sentence in Section 3.1:
"All signatories must have registered to attend
and have participated physically or remotely at
least three out of the previous five IETF
meetings". Those 10 remote participants (please
see above) cannot just sign up as that would be
considered as attending a meeting. If a person
was participating remotely in a WG session, the
WG Chair and some of the regular WG participants
would likely know who the person is.
If the IETF community is uncomfortable with the
"remote only" signatories, that could be
addressed by setting a restriction on the number
of signatories who are "remote only".
There were some concerns that were brought up
during the discussion on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list
and I would like to see a proposal (or a revision) to resolve them. One of the
Could Alexey, Warren or you please list the
concerns so that they can be addressed?
other things that came up during the discussion
was that some of us felt that a path to Nomcom
eligibility for remote participants was a much
better way of preventing disenfranchisement of
remote participants. I think Barry stated this
explicitly in one of his emails. Given that
there are multiple potential way to go about
achieving the goals, I do not see that harm in
having further discussion to see what we should pick as a base.
Since Barry sent his email about Nomcom
eligibility there hasn't been any draft about
that topic. There isn't anything which could be picked as base.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
