Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] The eligibility-discuss Mailing List Virtual Meeting; October 24, 2019 17:00 UTC

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 08:06:05 -0700

There has been discussion on the "eligibility-discuss" mailing list
about a proposal to address some aspects of the recall process. There
will be a virtual meeting, by WebEx, to continue that discussion, on
24 October at 17:00 UTC, scheduled for 1.5 hours. The WebEx
information will be posted to <[email-masked]> in
advance of the meeting. Pete Resnick will chair, and Barry Leiba will
be the responsible AD.

The meeting will be driven by the following problem statement; the
goal will be to progress the work that has started on the list, with
further discussion continuing on the list (and possible additional
virtual meetings, if necessary).

================================
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: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:01:59 -0400

--On Friday, October 4, 2019 08:06 -0700 IESG Secretary
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> There has been discussion on the "eligibility-discuss" mailing
> list about a proposal to address some aspects of the recall
> process. There will be a virtual meeting, by WebEx, to
> continue that discussion, on 24 October at 17:00 UTC,
> scheduled for 1.5 hours. The WebEx information will be posted
> to <[email-masked]> in advance of the meeting.
> Pete Resnick will chair, and Barry Leiba will be the
> responsible AD.
>...
 
> 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.
>...

On the theory that this should be raised now rather than waiting
for the call...

With the understanding that I think this discussion is
worthwhile and that I'm merely playing devil's advocate...

At present, the recall process, as described in RFC 7437
(numbers are subsections there), has the following approximate
timeline:

(7.1) Petition filed with ISOC President.  Could be very quick
if, e.g., the idea came up an a meeting plenary, the petition
were circulated there, signatures were obtained, and the
petition were then handed to the ISOC President but, even then,
the Secretariat would need to verity the signatures, so figure a
few days to a week minimum. In practice, probably longer than
that, including discussions of alternatives, informal requests
to the individual to resign, etc.  Probably even longer if the
recall is  controversial (e.g., if it was motivated by anything
other than someone dropping out and not responding to stimuli).
The one case we've had of a drop out might predict a month or
two between when the problem was first noticed and when the
petition was ready to go to the ISOC Chair.

(7.2) Appointment of Chair.  If the Internet Society President
has a list of candidates who had already agreed that they would
serve ready, maybe under a day.  As far as I know, we have never
done that.  If the Internet Society President felt a need to
consult various IETF participants (leadership or otherwise)
before making an appointment and/or the first person approached
didn't immediately agree, a week or two is more likely.

(7.3) Call for candidates (per Section 4.16).  To my knowledge,
we have never allowed less than a month.  I would predict that
the choice of a significantly shorter time would be appealed on
ground of fairness.   Then Section 4.16 requires an announcement
of the volunteer pool, checking by the Secretariat,  and
announcement of the randomization mechanism to be used.  RFC
7437 requires at least a week for Nomcom selections.  Because
the conflict of interest issues with Recall Committee members
are more stringent than for the Nomcom, it might be reasonable
to expect that more time would be needed to assure fairness, so
let's assume two weeks.   Then Section 4.17 specifies another
week (at least) for announcements and opportunity for
challenges, plus another two days if challenges arrive at the
end of that week.    Assuming the Chair, once appointed, would
be able to clear her schedule and move immediately, and assuming
no dispute resolution processes or un-contactable volunteers,
that is around seven weeks between appointment and having a
seated Recall Committee.

(7.3) Investigation.   The recall committee then has to organize
itself and conduct an investigation that requires at least
hearing from the candidate and consulting third parties.  We've
never gotten that far before, but fairness would probably
require arranging to hear from, and discuss things with, the
candidate in parson if that were requested and issuing a call
for input to the community.  Less than a month between when the
committee membership was finalized and when it was ready to vote
would be astonishing. Including time to debate mechanisms for
operation (especially the first time with no precedents),  six
weeks would be more realistic.

SO, to this point, we've got an indeterminate time to organize a
petition, probably a week to certify the petition, a week or so
to get a Chair appointed, seven weeks to ask for and seat
volunteers, and then six weeks to a vote. That is a likely
minimum of 15 weeks between petition submission and the vote,
with many opportunities for that stretching out several weeks
longer.  And that excludes whatever time is needed to organize a
petition and get signatures (except in the case of the collect
at plenary scenario).   

If the Recall Committee then musters a 3/4 vote to remove the
candidate (with 10 voting members, that means only two of them
can vote "no" or, if it is allowed, abstain, the mid-term
vacancy process starts.  That means six weeks to make a
selection (a time limit that was apparently proven unrealistic
the last time we tried it and that may be in need of review) and
then two weeks for the confirming body.  Another eight weeks
total, assuming the nomcom springs into motion the day the
recall committee announces its result, which is probably also
unrealistic.  

We are now at 23 or 24 weeks, still ignoring time for
malfeasance to become a clear enough pattern to justify a
recall, time to write and organize a petition, any non-trivial
time to collect signatures (if signatures have to be collected
by mailing list, add a few more weeks), and assorted snags that
could stretch things out further.  That is well over a half
year.    Given that the (next) nomcom typically issues a call
for nominations in mid-August, for someone with an expiring term
that makes initiating a petition-initiated recall started later
than February fairly pointless, i.e., before the second year or
a two-year term starts.  If someone is on their first term, they
probably get a free pass while other members of the relevant
body and community feedback try to cure the behavior by
persuasion and socialization unless the bad behavior is so
blatant as to call the sanity of the appointing Nomcom and
confirming body into question.  Figure six months for that.  So,
for a two year term, the time in which a petition-initiated
recall is really plausible starts in September of the first year
and extends, maybe, into February of the subsequent one, a span
of about five months.

So, with that analysis and explanation, two questions: 

(1) Are the issues outlined in the scope of work worth the time
they will take to address?  On the grounds that we have to start
somewhere, I think the answer is still "yes", but others might
want to think about that.

(2) Assuming we get to a WG and it produces a document that
specifies changes for one or more of those issues, what are the
odds of one or more IESG members generating DISCUSS positions on
the grounds that the issues are largely irrelevant and then
either sitting on the DISCUSS or engaging in nit-picking or
bad-faith negotiation until everyone gives up?  

best,
   john

p.s. anyone think I should turn the above into a critique of the
present process, probably with an expanded analysis of maximum,
minimum, and likely delays, and hand if off to the ISE?  Any
volunteers to collaborate?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 21:35:54 +0200

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 21:01, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> […]
> 

No but I think it’s fair to ask the question about whether we need to fix the overall process, more broadly.

Eliot

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 16:02:04 -0400

Hi John,

> On Oct 4, 2019, at 3:01 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It would be better for all involved if no one assumes that IETF participants act in bad faith.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 18:06:42 -0400

--On Friday, October 4, 2019 16:02 -0400 Alissa Cooper
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> specifies changes for one or more of those issues, what are
>> the odds of one or more IESG members generating DISCUSS
>> positions on the grounds that the issues are largely
>> irrelevant and then either sitting on the DISCUSS or engaging
>> in nit-picking or bad-faith negotiation until everyone gives
>> up?  
> 

It would be better for all involved if  there were never, and
never had been, any symptoms of IESG members acting in bad
faith.  No one now on the IESG was on the IESG when the NEWTRK
WG was active and that several current IESG members weren't even
active in the IETF then.  It would be unfair and unreasonable to
assume that anyone of the current IESG would behave the way the
IESG did then. 

However, the sequence of events with NEWTRK was that the IESG
chartered that WG with the very specific mandate of reviewing
and revising the mechanisms supporting the standards process
including new ways to identify documents.  The WG, at least IMO,
worked very hard, got through a number of contentious issues,
and submitted documents to the IESG with the usual publication
request.  The IESG then declined to put the documents out for
Last Call, with, IIR, no actual reasons given other than that
the proposals would cause more work for the IESG and where
therefore unacceptable.  One could characterize that action as a
good-faith decision to kill a proposal that the IESG would never
allow to go forward without wasting the community's time on a
Last Call, etc., but it did not leave a good taste in the mouths
of those who put a lot of energy into NEWTRK.   At a minimum, it
had a chilling effect on additional process work.

There may well be cases that I've forgotten, but my recollection
is that every proposal that has gone anywhere since then to
change or adjust IETF processes, especially with regard to the
standards track, has either been trivial tuning or has
originated top-down from the IESG, the IAB, or the IAOC, not
bottom-up from the community.  Given that history, I suggest
that the questions of whether a proposal to make significant
changes the recall process model would be taken seriously and
whether the sort of minor tuning the problem statement for the
upcoming meeting contemplated would be acceptable and processed
is reasonable.  I note that you did not step up and say "yes, it
is time the community reviewed these issues and, as General Area
AD, I will take the lead".  There is no reason why you should.
especially if you don't feel that would be appropriate or wise.  

However, I have not assumed that anyone now on the IESG would
act in bad faith.  I merely suggested that, given the history
(including what I see as chilling effects and the number of
significant changes that have been proposed and adopted without
originating at least partially within the leadership), it is,
IMO, reasonable for members of the community to seek reassurance
that any proposals would actually be processed rather than being
stalled for long periods after a WG got finished with them.  If
my choice of language to express that request was problematic, I
apologize.

best,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:16:57 -0700

Hi John,
>On the theory that this should be raised now rather than waiting

[snip]

>want to think about that.

I did not understand what the issue(s) is about.  Is it about the timeline?

>bad-faith negotiation until everyone gives up?

Part of discussing the issues is about being able to address them if 
questions are asked.    I would not describe questions (which I 
haven't seen) as nit-picking.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:41:56 -0400

Here is the WebEx information for today's call:

"eligibility-discuss" virtual meeting
Hosted by ART Area
 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM Thursday, Oct 24 2019 (UTC+01:00) Belgrade,
Bratislava, Budapest, Ljubljana, Prague

Meeting link:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m53f271df6ae5f0a805c2f790d5809e48

Join by phone: 1-650-479-3208 Call-in number (US/Canada)

Meeting number: 641 978 746
Password: recall

-- 
Barry

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:06 AM IESG Secretary <[email-masked]> wrote:
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss