Hi Noel,
At 05:53 25-10-2012, Noel Chiappa wrote:
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
It's going to be controversial.
So, view the original call from the IAOC as a request to the IETF, in formal
plenary mode, to make the following policy/procedure changes/etc:
- To declare that, due to an oversight on our part at the time of drafting,
our existing policy/procedure does not handle certain cases, so we are
_temporarily_ (see below) setting up an ad hoc procedure to handle those
cases;
- That said temporary ad hoc procedure is to have the IETF in plenary mode
decide/declare that positions are vacant due to the withdrawal of the holder.
See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75474.html
The call also make the following procedural request:
- That, following that temporary ad hoc procedure, in the particular case in
the original call, the holder be declared to have vacated, due to his long
lack of communication, despite _extensive_ attempts to contact him.
So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
_any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.
Julian Reschke mentioned the following [1] on an unrelated thread:
"The IETF is open to anyone, works async on mailing lists, and doesn't
require any membership fees. I don't think there's any standards body
that is *more* open to individuals."
I would add the word "fair" to the above.
It's pretty clear he's checked out, and needs to be replaced. We ought to
focus on the most economical way to achieve that purely bureacratic action.
Yes. The problem with fairness is that it can be an overhead. Its
advantage is a sense of legitimacy which is more than a piece of
paper, electronic or otherwise, can do.
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75340.html