At 05:55 PM 10/23/2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
Death is an objective evaluation. Resigned is an objective evaluation. "went
away" is a subjective evaluation. "refused to respond to queries" - irrelevant
unless you know why, and then it's a subjective evaluation.
The recall committee gets to decide subjective questions. AFAIK that's why
it's specified in this document. There is no other way specified in BCP101 for
the position to become vacant.
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.
It would be easier to declare that we're not going to put the choice to the
Nomcom and just have Russ pick the next member. But that's not what's written
down.
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?
Exactly - we have no precedent, and I for one do not want to establish one.
During my time as Nomcom chair a while back - we had a member that checked out
on the IESG. We never contemplated declaring the position vacant, instead the
Nomcom asked the chair at the time to suggest that the member resign.
Fortunately, he was able to respond and we got the resignation. But had he not
responded, I would have fought any attempt to replace him without first doing
due process.
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".
No, the facts of the email are that he hasn't responded or attended. That's the
evidence. The "we consider the seat vacant" is a verdict by a group of people
not yet empowered to enforce that verdict.
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.
If Marshall showed up at the IETF in Atlanta, explaining that he had been
absent for personal reasons now resolved, would you still feel the same way?
I'm not willing to allow the IAOC to define the seat vacant, because it is not
one of the powers delegated to them jointly or severally.
--Paul Hoffman