On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
...
... Nothing in the text suggests an
unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant."
You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer <a vacant office>
<vacant thrones>
C'mon Brian, not helpful. We're talking about the BCP 101 "definition of
vacant" which unfortunately is not nearly so precise. If there were no
mention of 3777 in the text then there would appear to be more leeway in
declaring a position vacant.
There is no definition of "vacant" or "vacancy" in RFC 3777 (except for the
special case of a mid-term vacancy caused by the appointment of the member
to another IETF position). Therefore it seems reasonable to resort
to the dictionary.
Objectively and factually, that seems to be the case.
I get that this is what you believe to be true, however what some of us
are saying is that we don't agree.
Actually I haven't seen that. I've seen people assert that our process
doesn't document the case of a non-responsive absentee member, but I
haven't seen anyone deny that we have an empty seat.
Brian