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

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Your notes are convincing to me.  In effect, you are saying that if the 
> IESG and IAB members cannot function well together, let's hear about it 
> before the nomcom cycle.  I missed the sentence "The petition and its 
> signatories must be announced to the IETF community" in my earlier 
> reading of RFC 3777.
>
> With that condition in place, draft-klensin-recall-rev-00 looks ok to 
> me.  Thanks.

The trouble is, all this is based at best on thought experiments. As a
potential victim of recall, I don't want to dive too deep into the debate,
but my assumption is that if there was a near-critical-mass situation
in the IETF or IAB (*) there would be enough energetic neutrons flying
out that 10 or 20 people in the community would know about it. So I'm not
convinced that John's proposed change is likely to change the measured
rate of recall petitions. But I can't find any particular downside,
and it does seem fair.

John, please add some words about the BCP 101 recall process for
the IAOC.

(*) er, if anybody thinks that's the case today, please let me or Leslie
know. Not that we don't have contention, of course.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf