ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

2012-10-29 09:01:36
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> 
wrote:


--On Monday, October 29, 2012 14:06 +0100 Eliot Lear
<lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:

Bob, everyone,

As I've mentioned, I'd prefer an alternative to what the
authors have written.  Call this the "let's program ourselves
out of a paper bag" option, when we all agree.  This may be a
rule we would wish to generalize.  Here is the basis for what
I propose:

 1. We have existing procedures to resolve contested removals
– the     recall process.
 2. "Uncontested" essentially means that we as a community are
in     unanimous agreement that the position is vacant.  That
means that by     definition, any "no" votes from a body means
it's contested.  3. The least amount of power should be
delegated to our bodies as is     necessary for the
organization's smooth operation.  4. Procedural arguments on
the IETF list are tiresome, when we all     agree on the right
outcome ;-)

With that in mind, I've attempted to reduce changes to a more
simplified form, as follows:
...
NEW:

    When an IETF body unanimously believes that a position on
that     body has been vacated, they may request confirmation
of this by     the community through an Extended Last Call
with their reasoning.     Should no objections be received
during that period, the position is     said to be vacant.

Eliot,

I generally like the general direction in which you are headed.
On other other hand, your specific proposal creates an
opportunity for a single individual, perhaps even one who
follows the mailing list but who is not an active participant in
the IETF or who just doesn't like the procedure, to disrupt
things and throw us back on recalls.   Given the number of
occasionally-grumpy people in the extended community, that does
not seem wise.

+1

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com


Quick thought and strawman suggestion: how about we take your
general model, but instead of using the absence of any
objections as the "not vacant, requires recall" trigger, perhaps
we could borrow a little bit from the recall model.  For
example, we might say that deciding that the procedure doesn't
apply when the body thinks the position is vacant requires a
petition endorsed by some number of people.  The "20" of the
recall procedure seems a bit high to me, but you get the general
idea.  One person claiming the position isn't really vacant
could be just a grump; ten or twenty probably indicates that
something odd is going on and a more heavyweight procedure is
required.

   john


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>