On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Wait just one minute.....
Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the
position).
I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only to ways to vacate a
position. Those two are obvious possibilities, but "went away and actively
refused to respond to queries" seems like a reasonable one as well.
He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities.
I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be
followed.
Isn't it obvious? Given a choice of the two procedures, and given that Nomcom
is already choosing an IAOC member, declaring the seat vacant is way easier.
Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for volunteers. Do the recall
committee selection prior to the IETF, present your case to the recall
committee at the IETF and stand back and let them do the work.
I appreciate the pain of having a member go AWOL, but I see no basis for
declaring the position vacant based on current practice.
Ummmm, what current practice are you referring to? Has something like this
happened in the past decade or two?
I would consider that your email constitutes evidence that the IAOC has asked
for a recall petition to be circulated. I would consider that the list of
grievances you've posted constitutes sufficient grounds for the petition.
That's an interesting reading, given that what the email says is "we consider
the seat vacant".
I would estimate that you have sufficient support for the petition to be
confirmed, but I don't see anything so critical that would suggest that the
recall process need not be followed.
I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the
recall committee.
I'm willing to let the IAOC define the seat vacant, because it clearly is, and
there is no specific definition of "vacant" that disagrees with the logical
conclusion.
--Paul Hoffman