Subject: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:05:19 -0400

Jim,

At the time the recall procedures were changed to require many
signatures on petitions, they were also changed to make the
requirement for signatures nomcom-eligibility.  The specific
text, from Section 7, now reads:

>   1.  At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community,
> who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating
> committee, may request by signed petition (email is
> acceptable) to the Internet Society President the
> recall of any sitting of a body with members to which
> this document applies.
> 
>    All individual and collective qualifications of
> nominating committee eligibility are applicable,
> including that no more than two signatories may have
> the same primary affiliation.
>...

There is actually an ambiguity in this statement, at least in
your current draft.  One way to read the draft is that, because 

> "15.  Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees,
> sitting members of IAOC, sitting members of the IAB, and
> sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer to serve on the
> nominating committee."

(from Section 4) that they are not "qualified" and hence cannot
participate in recall petitions.   The statement above can also
be read as indicating that those people are "qualified" to
volunteer if they meet all of the other requirements, they are
just prohibited from actually volunteering.  With the second
reading, they could participate.  My understanding is that the
prevailing reading of 3777 has been that they are not permitted
to participate in recall petitions.

That had a side-effect that many of us believe to have been
unintentional, a view that is reinforced by the ambiguity
mentioned above, namely the disqualification of members of the
IAB, IESG, and IAOC from sponsoring recall petitions.  Whether
it was intentional or not, there are at least two significant
reasons why the leadership folks should be able to sign
petitions and even initiate them:

	-- If there is really a serious problem within one of
	those groups, the members of that group, and perhaps
	members of others, are the ones best positioned to
	understand the nature of the problem and, if it is
	actually due to the consistent behavior of an
	individual, to identify that fact and the individual
	involved.  Under the same circumstances, the broader
	community might well see only a "this isn't working at
	all well" situation.
	
	-- The converse of that need for an internal perspective
	is that, if the petitioners cannot get a single member
	of the relevant body to stand up and say, "yes, she is
	the problem and we haven't been able to fix it", that
	may be important information for others considering
	signing the petition and/or for the recall committee.

When this has been discussed before, the argument has been made
that preventing IAB, IESG, or IAOC members from signing recall
petitions prevents vendettas within those bodies from exploding
into recalls.  I believe that concern is unreasonable and
unfounded.  We had many years when IAB and IESG members were
permitted to initiate recalls.  None ever did, despite, in
retrospect, one or two cases when they should have.   In
addition, the pressures within those groups to not break harmony
and start publicly pointing fingers at one of the members are
immense and it still takes 20 signatures (more than the
membership of any of those bodies).  If someone decides that
initiating a recall is needed, then the community needs to hear
about it and hear about it directly (rather than having IAB,
IESG, or IAOC members recruiting others in private to initiate a
recall without even the option of speaking out themselves.
Whispering campaigns are never of benefit to the IETF.

My hope is that you and others will be sufficiently sympathetic
to the position described above to include it in your draft.  If
not, I'd dust off my ancient draft on the subject and post it so
we can have a separate discussion on the issue.   But, in any
event, the ambiguity should be fixed -- we clearly do not need a
situation in which, were a recall petition to start being
circulated, there would be controversy about who can sign it.

     john

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:49:41 -0400

-- On March 8, 2009 11:05:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] 
draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 --

> requirement for signatures nomcom-eligibility.
>
> > ...
>
> they are not permitted

Speaking personally, I agree with you that sitting members of these 
bodies should be permitted to participate both in recall petitions and 
on the recall committee.

Speaking as editor, past process has been that we don't change this 
document unless there is overwhelming support.  So, if other folks 
agree they need to speak up.  Of course, any discussion of the issue is 
also welcome.

And, of course, if folks don't like that process they should comment on 
that too.

Jim

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:18:21 -0400

I would agree that sitting I* members should be able to sign recall 
petitions.  I am not sure whether this is better done in Jim's document, 
or in a separate document.  (We do need to avoid the endless discussions 
of every change any body wants, just to get the IAOC properly documented 
as excluded.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:24:31 +1300

I agree. Even in the worst possible case, where a subset of the I*
had a personal problem with another subset of the I*, I don't see
how allowing them to sign a recall petition would actually make the bad
situation even worse. It would only happen if things were already
beyond the ability of the I* to resolve on its own, and would amount
to a request for mediation.

   Brian

On 2009-03-10 05:18, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:41:44 -0600

> to a request for mediation.

I agree as well..  As for whether this should happen
in this document or a separate one, I believe it is
reasonable to remove the ambiguity that currently
exists in the draft.

-danny