Sounds reasonable to me.

On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:58 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --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
> 

Reply via email to