Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] New draft: draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 06:16:21 -0700

Hi folks,

I've just posted a fleshed out version of the proposal that MSJ
made a while back of allowing a body to recall its members. Here's
the rationale:

This document proposes an alternate structure which is designed
to deal with just egregious cases (e.g., total member checkout,
major misconduct) but is also faster because it doesn't involve
spinning up the nomcom machinery (twice, once to recall and once
to replace). In this structure, the IAB/IESG would vote to
expel the offending member with consent from the other body.
The rationale here is that the body themselves is in the best
position to know when a member really needs to be removed.

Thanks for reading!

-Ekr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 09:32:24 -0400

Given your description here, I would have expected the document to 
include a clear set of definitions for what constituted legitimate 
grounds for such expulsion.
As written, although you specify an appeal process there does not seem 
to be any well-defined grounds provided for such an appeal.

If it is really about cases of serious non-performance, I would think it 
should say that.  And that it should take more than 67% of the body for 
the removal.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 06:51:34 -0700

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments.

> to be any well-defined grounds provided for such an appeal.

I hadn't thought of this. I think this generally points to a point of
confusion
in this document about the role of the  appeal to the confirming body,
namely
is that appeal supposed to check that the expulsion was good or that it
formally followed the rules?

I tried to follow the precedent of 7437, which is basically to specify
voting
rules but not allow decisions to be made on any basis (for instance, here's
the text about confirmation in 3.7.3):

   The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information and
   any means acceptable to them, including but not limited to the
   supporting information provided by the nominating committee,
   information known personally to members of the confirming bodies and
   shared within the confirming body, the results of interactions within
   the confirming bodies, and the confirming bodies' interpretation of
   what is in the best interests of the IETF community.

The text around recalls is similar, just requiring a "justification".
But perhaps that's not the right way to think about it?

> should say that. And that it should take more than 67% of the body for

I don't feel strongly about 2/3; it's just a common supermajority level. If
people
thought 3/4 was appropriate, that wouldn't be something I would fight about.

-Ekr

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 20:47:00 +0200

Hi Eric,

This goes a long way to address some of the well known problem cases, and I generally support what you wrote.  I struggle with the secrecy elements in your draft.  It’s not that I entirely disagree, but I think it would be good to articulate your reasoning.

Eliot

> On 16 May 2019, at 15:16, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 14:07:13 +1200

Hi,

>    The contents of the statement on the reasons for expulsion shall be
>    held confidential by both bodies.  However, the member being proposed 
>    for expulsion in their sole discretion, MAY make their statement
>    public.

That is a little like the US Congress saying "We have impeached
President Blimp but we're not going to tell you why." I certainly
see the motivation for confidentiality about details, but there's
something missing if the underlying issue is completely hidden.

At least, shouldn't a one-line non-defamatory explanation be public?

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 05:42:18 -0700

> At least, shouldn't a one-line non-defamatory explanation be public?

I'm not religious about this. I wouldn't be opposed to such an explanation,
though I'd want to understand what the legal implications are.

-Ekr