On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Except that, unfortunately, it isn't (reasonable). The equivalent
situation is something akin to a corporation's bylaws. Given that there
are 2 procedures actually defined in BCP 101 (vacant, and recall) it is
not Ok to simply make up a new procedure.
With all due respect to Marshall, he has clearly abrogated his duty, and
is subject to recall. While the argument of "not communicative ==
vacant" is attractive for its expedience, the document not only does not
say that, it has specific language that defines what to do in the case
that a member is not doing their job, "abrogates his or her duties ->
recall."
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.
Several of us have said it several times now.
All that said, I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that
nothing new has been said on this thread for a while now, and it's high
time we got the opinion of competent legal counsel. If we have a strong
legal opinion that declaring the position vacant by fiat is an
acceptable course of action, I will drop my objection.
Doug