Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:34:37 -0700

Hi, all.

I am serving as the responsible AD for a virtual meeting (via WebEx)
and ongoing work to address what's been discussed on this list (the
"eligibility" list).  See below for the problem statement that will
drive the virtual meeting, and let's see where we get from there.
This meeting will serve to progress the work that's started on this
list -- we expect that to be continued on the list and we will have
further virtual meetings if the participants think that will best help
keep things progressing.  This is a start, not a conclusion.

I want to have an experienced co-chair and a co-chair from among the
remote participants to handle this.  I'd like to find people who could
see the work through if it should form a working group, but for now
I'm looking for chairs for the virtual meeting and short-term
follow-up.

Pete Resnick has agreed to be the experienced co-chair.  I'd like to
avoid having as chairs those who have been (and want to be) very
active in the discussion.  If others of you -- remote participants who
want to see this work be done but don't intend to be major
contributors -- would like to volunteer as co-chairs with Pete, please
let me know off list.  Ideally you will be interested in learning how
to lead consensus building in an IETF group, and would want to
continue your participation beyond this limited work.

The rules for virtual meetings require that we give two weeks' notice
of the meeting time, but I'd like to do closer to four weeks, so we
need to nail down a date very soon.  It's going to be challenging to
find a time of day that works for enough of us, and I'll have to ask
people to be very flexible about times, realizing that *someone* is
likely to have to participate at a pretty awful hour, local time.

I'd like to get feedback on this plan in the next few days, and then
put out a doodle around the end of the week to try to pick a day and
time.  If you intend to participate, please post to this thread your
intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to
UTC).

I think we do need to decide, as a group, whether the limited update
to the recall process is important enough to stand on its own... or
whether it makes more sense to address the broader issue of
enfranchising remote participants, and to update the recall process as
part of that.  There will certainly be time in the virtual meeting to
have that discussion.

Barry

================================
Problem statement

The current description of the process for initiating petitions for
recalls for NomCom-appointed roles is described in RFC 7437 (updated
by draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis, in the RFC Editor queue).  That
process needs updates.

The scope of this work includes the following three specific issues
with the petition process; other parts of the recall model and other
ways of removing Nomcom-appointees are explicitly out of scope.

The three issues are:

- Remote participants are not eligible to seek redress through the
recall process.

- Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible, and
this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition.

- The required number of signatories sets a very high barrier to
initiate a recall petition.

The virtual meeting

The purpose of virtual meeting is to examine the above-mentioned
issues and determine, for each, whether there is sufficient interest,
agreement, and importance to continue work on that item, and, if so,
how to best organize that work.  A possible starting point for the
work is draft-moonesamy-recall-rev.

This is all part of a larger set of discussions surrounding both the
recall process and the eligibility of remote participants to be voting
members of the NomCom.  In order to keep the work bounded, for the
purpose of this meeting these larger discussions are secondary: they
will be discussed, but we should try to maintain a tactical focus.
================================

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:14:14 -0700

> drive the virtual meeting, and let's see where we get from there.

I assume we'll start by discussing whether these claimed problems in fact
need to be addressed?

> part of that.

Or whether any change is needed at all, right?

-Ekr

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:23:10 +0100

Hi Barry, Ekr, all,

Ekr wrote

> I assume we'll start by discussing whether these claimed

> problems in fact need to be addressed?

I’m a little concerned by the choice of language here.

>> - Members of bodies appointed by the NomCom are also not eligible,

>>   and this restricts the timely initiation of a recall petition.

>>    initiate a recall petition.

The first one and a half of these are statements of fact. Using the phrase “claimed problems” seems to cast doubt on the facts, but they are not open for debate.

The remaining one and a half are statements of opinion, and are, of course, open for debate.

I wonder whether the discussion of “need to be addressed” might be tempered with a discussion of “possible harm” caused by addressing them. For example, could allowing remote participants to participate to some extent in a recall petition cause cost or damage to the IETF. We can then offset our concern for that harm with our concern to make sure that the IETF appears to be an open and welcoming place for remote participants.

Similarly, we might look at what harm it might cause if members of the IESG were able to sign a recall petition. And we could then consider that harm in the light of the opposing view that there are times when the IESG will be particularly well informed about the need to recall one of their peers.

- - - - -

Barry, I’ll try to join the meeting. I’m located at UTC+1 (for the next month).

Best,

Adrian

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:28:58 -0700

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:23 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The first one and a half of these are statements of fact. Using the phrase
> “claimed problems” seems to cast doubt on the facts, but they are not open
> for debate.
>

They may be facts, but that doesn't mean they are problems. As an analogy,
people who aren't US citizens aren't eligible to vote in US elections, but
that doesn't mean it's a problem. I appreciate that opinions may vary here,
but that's the point.

-Ekr

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:30:55 +0000

Shall we call them “open issues” then?

What does that change, that maybe we want to “close no action” ?

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:31:36 -0700

> What does that change, that maybe we want to “close no action” ?

Yes.

-Ekr

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:34:49 -0700

> They may be facts, but that doesn't mean they are problems.

Indeed, and this will work as IETF work always does:

- Some people have raised the issues that I put in my message, and
they consider these to be problems that have to be addressed.

- We will discuss them and decide whether we have rough consensus that
they *do* need to be addressed, and if so, whether we can come to
rough consensus on how.

- If we do not have rough consensus to "fix" them, we won't.  If we
do, we will do our best to.

Are there any issues with that process?

Barry

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 12:38:33 -0700

> Are there any issues with that process?

Nope. Thanks for the clarification.

-Ekr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:48:26 +1200

> If you intend to participate, please post to this thread your

UTC+12; UTC+13 from Sept. 29th.

And in this time zone, I'm largely disenfranchised from interim meetings in practice, and from interactive remote participation.

I'll post on the issues once the agenda is more firmly formulated.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:52:32 +0000

> intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to
    
UTC-5  Intend to participate.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:53:56 -0700

Oh, and UTC-7

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:58:01 +0000

UTC-4.  Sigh ..

        

    -- 
    Eligibility-discuss mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:31:50 -0700

Hi Barry,
>intent and your time zone (as "UTC-4", "UTC+1", and so on, relative to

I intend to participate.  I would like to avoid  16 October if that 
is possible.  I'll probably be between UTC and UTC + a few hours.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:56:38 -0700

Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 12:28 PM 17-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>They may be facts, but that doesn't mean they are problems. As an 
>analogy, people who aren't US citizens aren't eligible to vote in US 
>elections, but that doesn't mean it's a problem. I appreciate that 
>opinions may vary here, but that's the point.

There are people from different countries who participate in the 
IETF.  I don't see how that analogy could be applied to cover those 
other cases.

A statement of fact is something which is real or true.  I'll pick 
the first of the three issues: "Remote participants are not eligible 
to seek redress through the recall process".  I'll leave it to the 
other subscribers to determine whether that is a fact.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:03:31 -0700

> IETF.  I don't see how that analogy could be applied to cover those

Well, it's always difficult to explain analogies, but there are also people
from different countries who participate in (e.g., live in) the United
States, but they are still not permitted to vote.

> other subscribers to determine whether that is a fact.

I mostly agree it's a fact [0]. I'm unpersuaded that it's a problem that
needs solving. There are a number of facts that some members of the
community might prefer were otherwise (for instance, some might not like
our IPR policy); that does not make them problems that the IETF needs to
address.

-Ekr

[0] I say "mostly" because the recall process cannot be initiated by a
single person. Rather, that person (even if not remote) needs to persuade
19 other people to agree. A remote person needs to persuade 20 people to
agree.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:06:51 -0700

Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 05:03 PM 17-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>Well, it's always difficult to explain analogies, but there are also 
>people from

Yes.

>I mostly agree it's a fact [0]. I'm unpersuaded that it's a problem 
>that needs solving. There are a number of facts that some members of 
>the community might prefer were otherwise (for instance, some might 
>not like our IPR policy); that does not make them problems that the 
>IETF needs to address.

I agree that it would take more than one signatory to initiate a 
recall petition.  I mentioned previously that it would also have to 
be accompanied by a justification.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:08:32 +0200

Eric,

> On 18 Sep 2019, at 02:03, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I mostly agree it's a fact [0]. I'm unpersuaded that it's a problem that needs solving. There are a number of facts that some members of the community might prefer were otherwise (for instance, some might not like our IPR policy); that does not make them problems that the IETF needs to address.

Is there a reasonable argument to be made that someone who participates in person is more impacted by poor leadership than one who participates remotely?

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:55:49 -0400

Barry,

First, I intend to participate if at all possible.  UTC-4 unless
this drags too far into the year.  And, yes, I have strong
opinions (probably in evidence below) and would rather express
them than try to pretend impartiality.

I think it can mostly be addressed in the Doodle Poll, but note
that there are some events just outside the likely four-week
notice window that will either block block participation or
alter time zones for some of us.  One is the World Internet
Conference (WIC) / Wuzhen Summit 20-22 October with associated
pre-meeting and post-meeting events and travel time.  

While I think it would be reasonable to address this in more
depth at the virtual meeting or in different threads on this
list, I see the question of whether there is a problem to be
solved in terms of whether behaviors among the leadership that
would differentially harm or otherwise disadvantage remote
participants (or persistent failure to address and remedy such
behaviors) are possible.   If they are (personally, I believe
that is close to obvious and have even experienced small
versions of such behaviors), then there is a question of whether
forcing remote participants to plead with frequent f2f meeting
attendees for support is consistent with fairness in an
organization that is supported to depend on consensus that
reflects all active and contributing participants.

Thought about that way, even the analogy to US residents and
voters (or residents of any other country or jurisdiction who
are not allowed to choose their leadership) breaks down.  It
might be reasonable if both populations are treated with equal
fairness and respect but, if not, there are issues even if the
"who votes" issue is not deemed appropriate for a solution.  For
example, if a non-citizen (non-voting) resident were attached on
the streets, I think most of us would assume that ethical
behavior would suggest that they have access to law enforcement
and other remedies rather than being treated as sub-humans whom
it is reasonable and appropriate to attack or have attacked. 

Finally, if we are expanding scope, at least in initial
discussions, beyond SM's rather narrow initial suggestion (and I
agree that we should) an announcement to the IETF and/or
IETF-announce lists is probably in order.

best,
    john

--On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 09:34 -0700 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi, all.
> 
> I am serving as the responsible AD for a virtual meeting (via
> WebEx) and ongoing work to address what's been discussed on
> this list (the "eligibility" list).  See below for the problem
> statement that will drive the virtual meeting, and let's see
> where we get from there. This meeting will serve to progress
> the work that's started on this list -- we expect that to be
> continued on the list and we will have further virtual
> meetings if the participants think that will best help keep
> things progressing.  This is a start, not a conclusion.
>....

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:08:41 -0700

> it is reasonable and appropriate to attack or have attacked.

Actually, I don't think this analogy breaks down all. To the contrary, in
the case you mention those people have recourse to the legal system but not
to select their representatives. And similarly in the IETF remote people
can appeal but cannot participate in the selection of leadership.

-Ekr

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 06:23:18 -0800

On 9/17/19 11:08 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Is there a reasonable argument to be made that someone who participates
> in person is more impacted by poor leadership than one who participates
> remotely?

Having been both remote and onsite for many many many meetings,
I'd argue that the converse is true.  There have been sessions
in which chairs were inattentive to remote queues, instances of
decisions being made by vote in a meeting session, etc.

Can you give some examples of the sorts of things you've got in
mind?

Melinda

-- 
Software longa, hardware brevis

PGP key fingerprint  4F68 2D93 2A17 96F8 20F2
                     34C0 DFB8 9172 9A76 DB8F

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:41:23 +0200

Hi Melinda,

> On 18 Sep 2019, at 16:23, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part

Totally agree.

> Can you give some examples of the sorts of things you've got in

I have no such examples, and I asked what I hope is viewed as a rhetorical question to point out that it really isn’t a question as to whether it is a problem that remote participants cannot take part in recalls: it is.  Whether we can find an appropriate solution that doesn’t create additional substantial risks, and how we characterize those risks is the question to which we should devote ourselves.

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:24:15 -0400

--On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 07:08 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> "who votes" issue is not deemed appropriate for a solution.
>> For example, if a non-citizen (non-voting) resident were
>> attached on the streets, I think most of us would assume that
>> ethical behavior would suggest that they have access to law
>> enforcement and other remedies rather than being treated as
>> sub-humans whom it is reasonable and appropriate to attack or
>> have attacked.
>> 
> 
> Actually, I don't think this analogy breaks down all. To the
> contrary, in the case you mention those people have recourse
> to the legal system but not to select their representatives.
> And similarly in the IETF remote people can appeal but cannot
> participate in the selection of leadership.

I suspect we should agree to disagree rather than pushing this
much further.  However, until the IETF changes its statements
about "IETF consensus" to reflect, if not "pay to play", at
least that the consensus is only among those who are well enough
financed (and resourced more generally) to attend a significant
fraction of meetings.   The political systems to which you refer
never make a claim of consensus (or even of open and
unrestricted participation) across their whole population.  The
IETF does.

I would prefer to allow remote participants full access and
participation rights in the leadership selection process as
well, but I see significant issues with all of the proposals
I've seen for ways to expand their access beyond making
nominations.  Initiating recalls appears to me to pose no such
challenge.

Moreover, I think there is an important distinction between
appeals (and right to appeal) and recalls.  Appeals are at least
nominally about a particular decision or action. Recalls are the
community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone who
has exhibited a consistent pattern of unacceptably bad behavior,
whether it is demonstrated through particular decisions or not.

   john

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:50:23 -0700

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:24 AM John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
. Recalls are the

> whether it is demonstrated through particular decisions or not.

This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any number of worked
examples of people being successfully removed by the ordinary nomcom
process.

-Ekr

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:53:00 -0400

On Sep 18, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any number of worked examples of people being successfully removed by the ordinary nomcom process.

It looks like John is talking about whether it’s fair/consistent for IETF participants who are not able to attend frequently to have the same degree of access to the process that frequent attendees have.

It looks like you (Eric) are talking about whether the different access that less-frequent attendees have is good enough.

These are both legitimate questions, but you are never going to converge when you are talking about different things.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:08:30 -0400

--On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 10:50 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:24 AM John C Klensin
> <[email-masked]> wrote: . Recalls are the
> 
>> community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone
>> who has exhibited a consistent pattern of unacceptably bad
>> behavior, whether it is demonstrated through particular
>> decisions or not.
> 
> This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any
> number of worked examples of people being successfully removed
> by the ordinary nomcom process.

I should have said "removing someone before the next nomcom
cycle".  Sorry.  I'm busy and have been told to use fewer words,
so I thought that would be clear.  Of course, given how slow and
painful the recall process is, one could argue that one doesn't
need it at all but should simply wait for the next nomcom.  I
believe that is any argument you'd made in suggesting that the
IAB and/or IESG should be able to remove their own members for
non-performance.  Or if may be an argument that the recall
process needs far more radical modification than Barry's list of
issues would suggest.  

Of course, whether there is any sort of out-of-line behavior
(with the possible exception of disappearing completely) severe
enough to justify removal rather than just waiting for the next
relevant nomcom to do its work.  I believe the answer is "yes".
That is certainly debatable but, if that is what we are really
discussing, let's be explicit about it.

best,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:11:58 -0700

Hello,
At 10:50 AM 18-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
><<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>. Recalls are the
>This seems like a rather odd claim, given that we have any number of 
>worked examples of people being successfully removed by the ordinary 
>nomcom process.

The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:29:19 -0800

> The Nomcom process and the Recall process are independent of each other.

I'm not EKR but I believe that the argument is that one obviates
the other - that bad actors can simply not be reappointed.  That
may be true, modulo schedules and whatnot (the risk of leaving
someone who's performing badly in place for longer than would be
the case if they'd been recalled).

Melinda

-- 
Melinda Shore
[email-masked]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:10:10 -0400

That (the possibility of using nomcom reappointment instead of recall) 
may be a choice in terms of balancing benefits and costs of solutions.

It is not an argument for claiming there is no problem, unless one is 
taking the view that the recall process is irrelevant.  While some folks 
are concerned that it is actually irrelevant, that is not part of what I 
understood as the scope for this.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 22:24:34 +0100

I think there are two major differences between NomCom and recall.

One is that you might have to wait up to two years to use NomCom to not re-appoint.

The other is that the feedback to NomCom is very different in focus and examination from that in a recall. That is, a recall makes a specific claim and provides evidence that is either enough to warrant a recall committee making a decision one way or the other. While one could provide supporting evidence to NomCom and even get a set of signatories to agree, I don't think a NomCom would see it the same way as a recall committee.

But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that the existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists. That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but not the one (I think) that SM raised in his draft.

SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should remote attendees be barred from participating in a request for a recall committee to be formed?

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Eligibility-discuss <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: 18 September 2019 21:29
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

Melinda

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:24:39 -0700

> understood as the scope for this.

Well, I do think the recall process is largely irrelevant, but my message
was in response to John's claim that recall was the "only socially
acceptable way" to remove someone, though I now see his reply clarifying
his position.

In any case, I don't see how we can not consider the effectiveness of
recall in the scope here. To the extent to which it is not an effective
mechanism, then we need to ask why before making changes.

-Ekr

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:29:23 -0700

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that the
> existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists.

No, I was responding to the narrow claim that John made that recalls were
the "community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone". I now
see his clarification and I think we are in agreement about the facts.

> SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should remote
> attendees be barred from participating in a request for a recall committee
> to be formed?
>

I understand that, but when considering new work we don't generally feel
ourselves bound by the particular question that the proponents want to
raise.

-Ekr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:46:20 -0400

I would put it differently.
We generally prefer to work on focused items.  While you may disagree 
with it, the scope as SM requested and Barry laid out is focused.  It 
does not raise the question of "what should we do about all the problems 
with recall?"

If recall is useless, then making a small change to the recall procedure 
is easy to do and harmless.

If recall matters, then we need to evaluate the tradeoffs in making the 
change that is proposed.  As such, it seems very reasonable for this 
list, and the discussion of this proposal, to assume that the recall 
process is at least somewhat useful.

Yours,
Joel

On 9/18/2019 5:29 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 2:24 PM Adrian Farrel <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     But, I confess, I read Ekr's comment as though he was saying that
>     the existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom exists.
> 
> 
> No, I was responding to the narrow claim that John made that recalls 
> were the "community's only socially-acceptable way of removing someone". 
> I now see his clarification and I think we are in agreement about the facts.
> 
>     SM's question was that, given that a recall process exists, should
>     remote attendees be barred from participating in a request for a
>     recall committee to be formed?
> 
> 
>     From: Eligibility-discuss <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> On Behalf Of Melinda
>     Shore
>     To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 04:40:47 -0700

Hi Adrian,
At 02:24 PM 18-09-2019, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>the existence of a recall process was pointless because NomCom 
>exists. That is certainly a question that could be discussed, but 
>not the one (I think) that SM raised in his draft.

The draft does not discuss whether having a recall process was 
pointless or not.  I am okay if anyone wishes to discuss that.  For 
what it is worth, that topic [1] is usually listed under "failure of 
accountability".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. The topic is about mechanisms which, when taken together, create 
incentives for responsible decision making.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:45:18 -0400

OK, discussion has settled down, so here's a doodle:
     https://doodle.com/poll/ip8w53k8en32553f

Basically:
I'm proposing four possible days, and four possible times on each day,
for 16 choices.

In New York time, the days are 23, 24, 28, and 29 October.  The times
are 3 AM, 1 PM, 4 PM, and 8 PM.

For any particular likely participant, some of those times are good in
your time zone, and some are horrible.  The doodle is set up as a
"yes/no/if need be" poll, and I ask you to please consider (as I've
done for the 3 AM slots) selecting "if need be" for the times that are
bad in your time zone, realizing that some set of participants will
have to suffer a bad time zone, and it might not always be Brian and
others in that part of the world.

Please doodle quickly, and let's try to get a date/time selected ASAP.
No later than end of day on 3 Oct, please.

Barry