Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Revisiting Removal of a Director

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 20:00:51 +0000

I have not seen others support the NomCom confirmation of removals or solely relying in I* recall - that's outside of where rough consensus seems to exist but thanks for reiterating your views.

Lou -> It seems the best you could hope for on removal is possibly support for both a board removal process as well as a community recall process as an alternative. (We may have to revise RFC 7437 anyway, so it's a relatively incremental change.) Thoughts?

Spencer -> You will recall I proposed unanimous except for the director in question, less one vote. You sort of led the objection to that path (with a similar 'I know math is hard' comment that you just repeated). So what will you support? 6 of the 7 in favor or 5 of the 7 in favor, where 1 is excluded from voting? 

Thanks
Jason

On 5/24/18, 3:12 PM, "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    On 5/24/2018 2:28 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
    > I do think it's important to consider a community veto of some sort 
    > for board removals... 
    
    While I continue to think using the recall procedure is right and 
    sufficient, I think a nomcom (or perhaps even iesg) confirmation of a 
    removal should be a reasonable middle ground.
    
    Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:49:40 -0400

> Lou -> It seems the best you could hope for on removal is possibly support for both a board removal process as well as a community recall process as an alternative. (We may have to revise RFC 7437…
I think it would also be good to explore Ted's thinking.  Other then 
that, if I'm in the rough - it is what it is.

Thanks,
Lou

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:25:41 -0500

Hi, Jason,

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:00 PM Livingood, Jason <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have not seen others support the NomCom confirmation of removals or
> solely relying in I* recall - that's outside of where rough consensus seems
> to exist but thanks for reiterating your views.
>
> Lou -> It seems the best you could hope for on removal is possibly support
> for both a board removal process as well as a community recall process as
> an alternative. (We may have to revise RFC 7437 anyway, so it's a
> relatively incremental change.) Thoughts?
>
> Spencer -> You will recall I proposed unanimous except for the director in
> question, less one vote. You sort of led the objection to that path (with a
> similar 'I know math is hard' comment that you just repeated). So what will
> you support? 6 of the 7 in favor or 5 of the 7 in favor, where 1 is
> excluded from voting?
>

I've been an AD for more than five years. People should know not to follow
my lead by now ;-) ... but I apologize for the late input.

I'm assuming that it should be difficult, but not impossible, to remove
board members. This is roughly the same as removing IESG and IAB members -
you can do it, but it's rare that we get that far down the path. That
allows board members to make unpopular decisions that are the right
decisions.

So I'd be OK with 6 of 7, with 1 excluded from voting, if that's the
consensus you're hearing. I wouldn't even consider myself in the rough.

What I'm trying to understand, and I think at least a couple of other
people are also trying to understand, is whether the broader community has
any Plan B if someone on the board really needs to go (see other people's
suggestions about using the Nomcom recall process, etc.), or (worst case
scenario) if a new board member turns out to be a train wreck in April and
the board can only get five votes to remove them, does the community have
to wait until the next March to see if the next board will do the right
thing?

So, that's why I asked if anyone else thought a Plan B, beyond having the
board able to remove board members, was useful.

I hope that's clearer than my previous note (and sadly, I'm editing a draft
in between e-mails to this list, so you know how clear THAT text must be!)

Spencer

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 10:49:20 -0400

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Lou -> It seems the best you could hope for on removal is possibly
>> support for both a board removal process as well as a community recall
>> process as an alternative. (We may have to revise RFC 7437 anyway, so it's
>> a relatively incremental change.) Thoughts?
>>
>> Spencer -> You will recall I proposed unanimous except for the director
>> in question, less one vote. You sort of led the objection to that path
>> (with a similar 'I know math is hard' comment that you just repeated). So
>> what will you support? 6 of the 7 in favor or 5 of the 7 in favor, where 1
>> is excluded from voting?
>>
>

That does seem like something we should avoid, so maybe unanimous - 1 makes
more sense (so 5 of 7 with a full board and one recused).