Bob,
I've read through the draft, and would prefer a different approach.
Since we already have a recall procedure for contested removals, this
draft should focus itself on uncontested removals, and really just
*absense*. How do you test if something is uncontested? Easy enough:
ask the IETF community. If a single person objects, let's call that
"contested" and go with the other procedure.
Eliot
On 10/24/12 6:14 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
The draft that proposes changes to the RFC3777/BCP10 to deal with vacancies
is now available.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00
Bob
--------------------
From: Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
To: i-d-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Reply-to: Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00.txt
X-C5I-RSN: 1/0/935/46939/50333
A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies
Author(s) : D. Crocker, et al
Filename : draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd
Pages : 4
Date : Oct. 24, 2012
BCP 10 (RFC 3777) specifies IETF processes for selection,
confirmation and recall of appointees to IETF positions. It also
refers to the mechanism of resignation as part of a sequence that
moves a sitting member to a new IETF position. However it does not
more generally deal with vacancies created by resignation, death or
uncontested, sustained absence from participation. This update to
BCP 10 specifies procedures for handling vacancies.
A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00.txt
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/