At 12:09 PM 11/16/2005, Jari Arkko wrote:
John, Lakshminath,
I mostly agree with everything that you wrote and the
nature of the recall process.
Nevertheless, as the central proposal in John's draft appears
to be the inclusion of IESG/IAB in the potential signing members
I still fail to see why this is necessary. If the issue is of
wide enough relevance and serious, the management surely
finds people (privately or publicly) that care enough to sign.
The argument has been around why if anyone needs to be excluded from
signing a recall petition. I have made a case to exclude the current
nomcom members and liaisons, but can't think of a reason to exclude
IAB and IESG members.
John notes correctly that the IAB and IESG members sometimes know
quicker than other IETF contributors if one of them is disruptive or
ineffective. The proposal contends that the burden on a recall
initiator is too high if she/he happens to be an IAB or IESG
member. Earlier I was concerned that if the process is secretive,
the IAB or IESG members can abuse it, but since recall petitions are
to be posted as public notices in the IETF list(s), I am fine with
it. As John notes, there is a threat of recall vs. an actual recall,
but again such checks on the power of an IESG/IAB member is a good
thing, although we are told that the IAB members don't have too many
levers to pull :-); that's another discussion, however.
Lakshminath
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf