Subject: Proposal for Reworking the Recall Procedure Initation.

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:37:11 +0100

A proposal for changing the requirements for initiating the
recall of an IAB or IESG member was discussed in Atlanta.

The following language represents the content of that proposal.

The recommend change would be to section 7.1

--
1. At any time, IETF participants qualified to be Nomcom members
according to the rules defined in 4.15, may request, by signed
petition, the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member. The
petition must signed by a number of participants equal to 2% of
the average attendance of the last 3 IETF meetings and must
include a statement of justification for the recall.  The
petition must be made public and must be submitted to the
Internet Society President.
--

The minutes from the meeting, which have been sent to me, but
which I have not had time to post process yet, contain some
discussion on this proposal.  While the sense of the room seemed
to favor the change to a petition, there was no agreement of the
number of individuals required for such a petition, i.e. a 1%
threshold was recommended as well as a fixed number.  Also there
was a discussion of whether the number should be based on the
average attendance at the last 3 meetings or on the then current
number of Qualified nomcom volunteers (by rule 4.15).

If you have opinions on this issue, please discuss them on the list.
I will try to determine the WG rough consensus on 16 Dec 02.

thanks
a.

-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:44:27 +0100

It seems like a good idea to make multiple voices
necessary to inititate the recall, to prevent frivolous or
vindictive recall attempts. However, let's keep it simple
and just require a defined number of qualified signatures.
I'd make it 10 or 20 at the most. That is enough to prevent
abuse.

BTW, the people signing the recall petition all need to be
excluded from the recall committee in rule 7.3.

   Brian

avri doria wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:37:48 -0500 (EST)

I support this simplification, although I'd like a number in the 12 to 
24 range.

Thanks,
Donald

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:44:27 +0100
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> To: ietf-nomcom <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Proposal for Reworking the Recall Procedure Initation.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 06:43:45 -0800

> I support this simplification, although I'd like a number in the 12 to 

++

/mtr

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:14:18 +0100

> I'd make it 10 or 20 at the most. That is enough to prevent

making it a fixed number should be OK. What about 15?
I don't think the exact value matters too much.

> excluded from the recall committee in rule 7.3.

good point.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 01:11:42 +0100

> I don't think the exact value matters too much.
I guess a 2% of the average of the last three meetings would come
to about 30, so we are actually considering come up with a much
lower number

als, would the rules on "no more than x from a certain company or
group" apply?

/Loa

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 01:26:54 +0100

Assuming we end up with WG consensus
on the 'no more the x per company' rule
I expect it should apply to this selection
as well.

a.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:22:37 +0100

> als, would the rules on "no more than x from a certain company or

Given the likely reaction to a petition signed by 15 or 30 Cisco engineers 
only, I don't think this is a problem. (but then I'm an optimist)

                      Harald