Subject: Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:57:24 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>

    > When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. 
    > To change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
    > definition retroactive.

By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, the IESG (repeat for
all other I* bodies) - e.g. changing its powers, etc - can't come into play
until between 1 and 2 years have passed, so that all existing seated members
will have been replaced/reseated.

Otherwise you'll be changing the powers/etc that they had when they were
seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.

	Noel

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:01:46 -0800

> seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.

I'm not seeing any movement in the discussion - it's probably time to
talk with an attorney.

Melinda

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:20:04 -0700

On 10/25/2012 11:57 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>> When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
>> change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by 
>> definition retroactive.
> 
> By that logic, _any_ change to any rule involving, say, the IESG
> (repeat for all other I* bodies) - e.g. changing its powers, etc -
> can't come into play until between 1 and 2 years have passed, so that
> all existing seated members will have been replaced/reseated.
> 
> Otherwise you'll be changing the powers/etc that they had when they
> were seated - i.e. retroactive changes to their powers/etc.

I can see why you would conclude that, but generally your interpretation
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," and therefore
shouldn't be done.

If your hypothetical changes involved granting more powers/benefits/etc.
to a sitting board, it's doubtful that any of them would disagree. :)

If your hypothetical change _removed_ things from a sitting board, some
of them may not like it ("This was not the job I signed up for") and
then they have the option to resign.

Doug

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:34:09 +0200

On Oct 25, 2012, at 21:20, Doug Barton <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _punitive_

Again, you are confused.
This action is not about punishing an individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were.

This is my last message on this.  
I'm repulsed by the idea of discussing this under this premise.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:52:51 -0400

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," 

Oh, for heaven's sake.  This is nothing to do with punishment.  This
is a straightforward administrative problem.  Turning this into an
opportunity to exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process
would be an injustice.  If the IETF has wound itself into such
bureaucratic knots that we can't just make an exceptional decision in
exceptional circumstances, we are in much worse trouble than I
thought.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:10:05 -0700

On 10/25/2012 12:34 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Again, you are confused. This action is not about punishing an
> individual, and I would be violently opposed to it if it were.

Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action, by any commonly
accepted definition in any context having to do with boards, committees,
etc. But "punitive" is different from "punishment." It's a subtle
distinction, but an important one.

I am not suggesting that Marshall should be punished, and I do not with
my remarks to be construed that way.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:19:26 -0700

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Oh, for heaven's sake.  This is nothing to do with punishment.  This is a
> straightforward administrative problem.  Turning this into an opportunity
to
> exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process would be an injustice.
If
> the IETF has wound itself into such bureaucratic knots that we can't just
> make an exceptional decision in exceptional circumstances, we are in much
> worse trouble than I thought.

Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an
extended period is inhibiting their activities. Beyond that, in this
specific case, someone needs to ask counsel about the issues StJohns raised.
Logic and common sense have no utility in the legal system, so making
arguments in favor of a logical outcome are simply a waste of time. 

We have already wasted 2 days of the procedurally defined recall, so if it
is so urgent that the position gets filled, that should have already
started. Clearly this is not urgent because people would rather argue about
why the defined process is too much of a burden, and won't take the simple
step of asking counsel for an opinion on concrete legal concerns. 

Since observed behavior shows this is not urgent, then take the next 6 weeks
to define a new process, then another 6 weeks to demonstrate vacancy after
the new process is defined, then another 6 weeks to find and vet the
replacement.  If you really want it done faster than that, start the defined
recall now and stop arguing why it is overkill. 

Tony

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:21:52 -0400

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> extended period is inhibiting their activities.....

This is the part which really confuses me.  Why is this such an urgent
matter?

The stated reason in the IAOC request for community feedback was
difficulty in getting a quorum:

    "Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much
     harder to get a quorum."

I was trying to figure out what the quorum requirements were, so I
checked out RFC 4071.  There I found:

   The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making rules,
   including its rules for quorum, conflict of interest, and breaking of
   ties.  These rules shall be made public.

I am not sure these are latest rules, but [1] states:

    "A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the
     IAOC then in office. All decisions of the members must be
     approved by majority vote of the members then in office."

[1]  http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-2010.pdf

So that means the quorum requirement is 5 people --- out of the 9
IAOC members.  OK, so if Marshall has been AWOL, there must be at
least four other people who are also not showing up if quorom is not
being achieved, which would seem to indicate a problem that extends
beyond just that of a single person.

The other potential problem is that the decision making process seems
to currently require a majority of the IAOC members, and not a
majority of the IAOC members who are attending a meeting.  This means
that if only five IAOC members attend an IAOC meeting, all five would
have to act unaminously to make a decision.

Still, I'm curious why the absence of one person is so great that
people want to make emergency rule changes and why people are treating
this as some kind of constitutional crisis.  Is there part of the
story which I am missing?

Regards,

						- Ted

P.S.  And if the IAOC is empowered to change its quorum and decision
making rules, is there some reason why they can't unanimously (if
there are only five people who are paying attention and attending
meetings) chose to set quorom to be say 3 or 4 people, and perhaps
only require a majority of the IAOC members in attendance?

This is something that appears could be done without having to make
any variances to existing procedure, or to make any emergency rule
changes.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:22:38 -0400

> exceptional circumstances, we are in much worse trouble than I

+1

+(much more than 1, actually)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:11:16 +0100

> +(much more than 1, actually)

What he said. Common sense should prevail. We can fix *this* tiny gap in
our procedures in due course, but we will need to apply common sense again
the next time we find a tiny gap.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:29:41 +0300

Brian, Richard, others,

> the next time we find a tiny gap.

For what it is worth, I agree with this as well.

Jari

---

From: Dick Franks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 03:15:16 +0100

and IAOC is unable to change its own quorum requirement because . . .
it can't achieve the necessary quorum!!

Now that _is_ a serious administrative oversight.

--

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:36:52 -0400

> the next time we find a tiny gap.

I also agree.  

The existence of an inappropriate tool (the recall process) should not prevent us from doing the right thing here.

Margaret

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:16:02 +0200

Andrew,

On 10/25/12 9:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is
> a straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an
> exceptional circumstances, we are in much worse trouble than I thought. A 

And as of yet nobody has challenged the need to remove Marshall.  We've
just gone off the deep end on process.  Yes, let's close the process
problem as Brian said in due course.  Let's also not rush through the
changes for all the reasons that John Klensin wrote, plus another: I
don't like the proposed approach, but that's for another message.

Eliot

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:00:17 -0400

On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> just gone off the deep end on process.  

What?! You are trying to say that the IETF ratholed on process? Never…

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/33235226/ietf-process-organic-cotton-tee_tshirt

W

> Yes, let's close the process

--
"When it comes to glittering objects, wizards have all the taste and self-control of a deranged magpie."
-- Terry Pratchett