Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:42:29 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>

    >> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
    >> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
    >> rules.

    > I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
    > followed.

Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use
in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut?

I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures,
but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient
to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so
asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the
general spirit.

And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever
happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or
proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point.

	Noel

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:03:52 -0400

Umm.. no.

When would you consider the office vacant?  Missing one meeting, missing two?  Not calling in for a week, a month, two months?  Etc.  I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial?  I'm in the service and on a classified assignment for three months?  Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction?  On a spiritual retreat that ends when you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF?  In rehab for 30-90 days for drug or gambling addiction?

We have a process.  The IAOC has made its case.  Let's let the IETF follow its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant.  After all, its already (only?) been two months.  Another month or less shouldn't hurt that much.

And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken for everything.  So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything.  (Seriously, I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove,  if all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!)

As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in and of itself.

Later, Mike

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:04:24 -0700

> in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut?

The procedures are what they are, and the recall procedure provides a
reasonable safeguard against abuse. By not following them you set a
dangerous precedent.

> asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the

I here you, and understand your desire for expedience. But at the same
time, the larger community has already expressed their will in
establishing the procedure we have. It is neither safe, nor appropriate,
to assume that the subset of people humming about this issue overlaps
sufficiently with the subset that hummed about establishing the
procedure to justify this decision.

There is also the risk of how abrogating our own procedures makes us
look to those observing us from the outside.

> proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point.

No, it's a very cogent point, and one that should be pursued by
interested parties who wish to modify the procedure for the next instance.

To put this another way, if you think it is easy to get the hums you
need to abrogate the procedure, it should be just as easy to accomplish
the recall process. And actually doing it will greatly inform those who
wish to improve the procedure for the future.

Doug

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:03:31 -0400

Mike has convinced me that we should be following the recall process.  So I
will change my initial "Yes," to a "No; we have to follow the process we've
set up.  Do a recall."

Barry

On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote:

> Umm.. no.
>
> When would you consider the office vacant?  Missing one meeting, missing
> two?  Not calling in for a week, a month, two months?  Etc.  I'm currently
> in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial?  I'm in the
> service and on a classified assignment for three months?  Trapped in a
> hospital for 6 weeks for traction?  On a spiritual retreat that ends when
> you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF?  In rehab for 30-90 days for
> drug or gambling addiction?
>
> We have a process.  The IAOC has made its case.  Let's let the IETF follow
> its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant.  After
> all, its already (only?) been two months.  Another month or less shouldn't
> hurt that much.
>
> And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken
> for everything.  So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's
> broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything.  (Seriously,
> I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove,  if
> all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!)
>
> As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered
> letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's
> views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in
> and of itself.
>
> Later, Mike
>