On 10/23/2012 11:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
>> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a
>> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF
>> rules.
> I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
> followed.
Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use
in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut?
The procedures are what they are, and the recall procedure provides a
reasonable safeguard against abuse. By not following them you set a
dangerous precedent.
I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures,
but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient
to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so
asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the
general spirit.
I here you, and understand your desire for expedience. But at the same
time, the larger community has already expressed their will in
establishing the procedure we have. It is neither safe, nor appropriate,
to assume that the subset of people humming about this issue overlaps
sufficiently with the subset that hummed about establishing the
procedure to justify this decision.
There is also the risk of how abrogating our own procedures makes us
look to those observing us from the outside.
And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever
happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or
proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point.
No, it's a very cogent point, and one that should be pursued by
interested parties who wish to modify the procedure for the next instance.
To put this another way, if you think it is easy to get the hums you
need to abrogate the procedure, it should be just as easy to accomplish
the recall process. And actually doing it will greatly inform those who
wish to improve the procedure for the future.
Doug