On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 20:52, Doug Barton <dougb(_at_)dougbarton(_dot_)us> wrote:
On 10/25/2012 9:57 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Oct 25, 2012, at 16:37, "Adrian Farrel"
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
retro-active
I don't get how that is relevant.
This is for the case the seat is still vacant when the new process comes
into force.
When Marshall was appointed the rules we have now were in place. To
change the rules now, and then apply them to this situation is by
definition retroactive.
There is some confusion in this argument:
We are not doing penal code here, where such a definition would indeed apply.
We are trying to keep the IAOC functioning.
If the IAOC is still impaired at the time the new process comes into force,
there is nothing retroactive about acting on the situation then and there.
First, I disagree with your belief that what you propose would not be
retroactive. Second, it's worth pointing out that if the IAOC put an
equal amount of effort into the recall procedure, the problem would be
just as solved, without danger of repercussion.
Doug