Re: On revising 3777 as in draft-klensin-recall-rev-00

--On 15. november 2005 12:24 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:

> I actually think the bar is too high for other reasons.  Those same 20
> people are not allowed to serve as jury, and that makes sense.  but we're
> not a large community, and while I understand the need to prevent DOS
> attacks on the IESG, I would still halve the number.  As it is now it's
> just about impossible to get rid of someone who is really doing a bad
> job, even if it's obvious.  The balance has to be gotten right, and
> that's hard, considering nobody has actually been recalled.  Has anyone
> even tried?
I remember talking about this at the time the NOMCOM WG decided.
An interesting argument was that the 20-person limit actually was a lower 
bar to responsible persons than the 1-person limit; with the 1-person 
limit, anyone who used the mechanism knew that he was a) standing alone and 
b) exposing a fundamental flaw in the IETF's DoS protections; with the 
20-person limit, you can easily get there when a crisis is big enough to 
gather lynch crowds, and you get the security of just being one among many, 
while if the crisis is a small one, you won't get that far.....
I don't think the tuning can be said to have succeeded if we get one recall 
request a year under non-crisis conditions.....

pgpyoX1KsuxM2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf