> From: Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us>
> You've also snipped out the entire portion of my message where I talked
> about actually changing the procedure
I happened to see one point I wanted to say something about (the 'hum group'
thingy), that's all.
And now that I've thought about this whole thing a bit more, I think Mike may
have put his finger on the key point: just what is enough to consider the
office vacant? His list of scenarios points out (implicitly) that we're
probably going to have a very hard time codifying that, without wasting
endless hours discussing and word-smithing.
That being the case, probably the much easier, simpler and better formal
procedure to set up, for use in these rare cases, is to put the facts of the
particular case before the community, and let them decide if the actions in
the particular case count as 'leaving the office vacant'.
Which is, by an odd coincidence, just what's been done here.
> you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that
> arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action.
And considerably more saying it is.
Look, using the full-blown recall process here is really disproportionate.
That complex, lengthy process is appropriate for places where one is unhappy
with what an office-holder is doing. It's a wholly different situation when
someone's has effectively resigned by going incommunicado for months.
I would like to point out that the United States Government is also happy to
use very different mechanisms for the two cases: for removal of an
officeholder over what they have done, the lengthy, complex, impeachment and
trial process is specified. For someone who's just plain incapacitated, a
much simpler process (a simple majority of the Cabinet) can act.
> From: Tobias Gondrom <tobias(_dot_)gondrom(_at_)gondrom(_dot_)org>
> And maybe we can get a 3 minute time piece from him (or someone
> authorised to speak on his behalf). If he would resign due to the fact
> that he has no time at the moment and for the foreseeable future,
> everything would be settled without trouble.
Now, that's by some distance the best suggestion I've heard yet.
Can Ray (or whomever) contact that person they are in touch with, and pass in
a message asking him if he wouldn't mind just formally quitting, so we don't
have to waste inordinate amounts of time and energy either i) doing the
recall thing, or ii) debating whether we need to do the full-blown recall or
not?
Noel