--On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:11 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
On 10/26/12 4:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
I'm using "expulsion" here the way its used in the US
political system - a legislative body may choose to expel
one of its members for various reasons. I propose that we
define such a mechanism for the IETF bodies.
Why should bodies have this right?
I'm not saying they should - but that seems to be what Bob et
al are asking for. Doing it this way means you don't have to
reach to questions of what constitutes an "absence" or
"abandonment" - subjective judgements.
If someone pisses his fellow members off sufficiently that
they can't work with him/her for whatever reason you have this.
And it's still subject to veto by the confirming body, so the
expulsion reasons will have to be pretty egregious to get
through two votes of 2/3.
Mike,
This is exactly the sort of path I don't want to go down, at
least without a lot of consideration of its possible
implications. Remember that the community has refused to even
let IAB or IAOC members sign/endorse a recall petition against
one of their own number and that process provides far better
checks against abuses or personality problems than any "expel
member" plan, even with a requirement for confirming body
signoff.
It is possible for someone to be in a tiny minority (perhaps of
one) in those bodies, thoroughly irritate everyone else about
positions, and still be acting in the best interests of the
community, maybe even reflecting community consensus. Having
watched a number of IABs from the inside, I wouldn't count on
them, and much less on the ISOC BoT, to say "no" to an internal
membership management request from the IESG or IAB respectively.
There have been exceptional years, but the general instinct in
matters that are really internal to how the other body functions
is to defer to that body on the grounds that they know what they
need.
In principle, I have no problem with setting up a list of
repeated/ long-term non-feasance, non-appearance, or
non-responsiveness conditions that are treated as equivalent to
a more formal resignation unless the body of which that person
is a member votes to waive the rule (i.e., not accept the
resignation). I actually think that would be completely
reasonable and that we probably should have established such
principles years ago even though I'd expect a lot of quibbling
about setting the thresholds for "repeated/ long-term".
But I believe we should not design things around this particular
case or create the perception that we are doing so by changing
processes while the case is still open. Indeed, I think
fairness dictates that people should know about such rules and
their implications at the time they accept nomination for a
position -- it becomes part of what they are signing up for --
rather than applying such a rule to today's incumbents.
best,
john