At 08:29 AM 11/16/2005, Jari Arkko wrote:
I am not convinced that we need to do any change in this
area. First, I think we have higher priority items to worry
about. The IETF really needs to spend its process change
cycles on things that provide a measureable effect and that
has a real impact on timeliness/quality/openess/your favorite
criteria.
As to whether this is urgent is a good question. But, the change
seems straightforward enough that we can accommodate it as part of
"regular business."
And we've never had a recall so optimizing process
for it is premature. Lets wait until we have recalls
and then tune the parameters.
I do believe that if the IESG or IAB has a problem working
together then we should hear about it as soon as possible.
But nothing prevents open discussion, including participation
of IESG members. If the only people who can be convinced
to sign a recall petition can be found in the IESG and IAB,
well, maybe we don't have a problem after all.
Finally, I'm not sure I am comfortable with the idea that
the IESG and IAB (altogether over 20 persons) could
all by itself sign a petion and get it processed. This would
appear to provide a channel to oppose decisions from the
nomcom, for instance.
The confirmation process takes care of this already. The IAB doesn't
have to accept the slate of IESG nominations the nomcom sends to
them, and so on.
The IESG and IAB have something to lose, if you think about it, if
they go about launching spurious recall petitions. Their names will
be published along with the petition and if the recall committee
comes back saying there is no need to recall, then people will take a
hard look at the petitioners. That's a good deterrent, I think.
If there's ever an issue that deserves recall-level discussion,
lets hear about that, publicly, and get enough people behind
it to sign the petition. If you can't get it done, maybe the
issue was not all that convincing to people.
Sometimes, a petition needs to be put together without starting
discussion on it already, so it makes sense to have some secrecy
while the signatures are collected. In that process, if the
initiators find out that there aren't really 20 eligible people to
sign, then they know perhaps they need to look inwards to handle the
issue at hand ;-). I'd like to think that some recall drives have
started and probably stopped at some point -- I am not sure healthy
is the right word, but that seems to fit in the course of IETF operations.
regards,
Lakshminath
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf