On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:33:38PM -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: > > It is not "fairly trivial" to sign up 10 remote participants for 3 out of > the last 5 meetings just to game the system; that takes at least a year's > worth of planning. That requirement (which has always been in the document) > seems plenty high to prevent completely frivolous petitions. And note that > even if there were frivolous petitions (and I think it is highly unlikely), > this would simply be a DOS attack on recall committees, not a way to remove > an AD or IAB member. > > Even if you think that the one year of planning is not enough to discourage > silliness, there are other potential simple solutions (e.g., half of the > petitioners must be non-remote registrants, etc.). Another thing perhaps to consider would be to start charging at least some amount of money to register as a remote participation. That money can be used to fund and improve the remote participation tools. (Since remote participants would become paying customers, there would be an expectation that quality provided to the remote participants would have meet a minimum quality bar --- which is a feature, not a bug.) People can disagree about how likely that redchan or gab.com participants would try to game the system in the future (perhaps it's not likely, but the Linux Kernel development community has not been immune from their interest), but requiring a real registration fee would no doubt decrease that risk. Futhermore, since we've already decided that it's OK to require a registration fee for in-person attendance, requiring something similar for remote participants --- since the claim is that they should have all of the rights and responsibilities pertaining thereto --- would seem only fair. Just a thought. - Ted
