Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such
as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair,"
Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is a
straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an opportunity
to
exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process would be an injustice.
If
the IETF has wound itself into such bureaucratic knots that we can't just
make an exceptional decision in exceptional circumstances, we are in much
worse trouble than I thought.
Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an
extended period is inhibiting their activities. Beyond that, in this
specific case, someone needs to ask counsel about the issues StJohns raised.
Logic and common sense have no utility in the legal system, so making
arguments in favor of a logical outcome are simply a waste of time.
We have already wasted 2 days of the procedurally defined recall, so if it
is so urgent that the position gets filled, that should have already
started. Clearly this is not urgent because people would rather argue about
why the defined process is too much of a burden, and won't take the simple
step of asking counsel for an opinion on concrete legal concerns.
Since observed behavior shows this is not urgent, then take the next 6 weeks
to define a new process, then another 6 weeks to demonstrate vacancy after
the new process is defined, then another 6 weeks to find and vet the
replacement. If you really want it done faster than that, start the defined
recall now and stop arguing why it is overkill.
Tony