--On Monday, October 29, 2012 14:06 +0100 Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.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. 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
