> From: Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
> And, the community does not have rough consensus for simply declaring
> his seat vacant under the current set of BCPs.
Why not, I cannot fathom, because as SM has pointed out (hat tip), RFC 4333,
"IAOC Member Selection Guidelines and Process", has text which is exactly on
point:
>> "if the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year term,
>> the selecting body may, at its discretion, immediately select a
>> replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim
>> process defined in Section 3.5.1."
The document doesn't define in detail what constitutes "unable to serve", but
it clearly means via some form of incapacitation (death, severe illness,
etc). Obviously, the intent of leaving un-stated exactly what constituted
"unable to serve the full two-year term" was that it would be determined by
common sense, applying the "unable to serve" test to the facts at hand.
He's clearly "unable to serve". I find it hard to see how someone who will
not respond to _any_ form of communication, over a period of months, is
'[]able to serve'.
If the _only_ way to determine that someone is "unable to serve the full
two-year term" is via the recall process, why didn't the document say that?
There is just the bald statement that 'if someone is "unable to serve", a
replacment can be selected using the same process that selected them'.
And he's definitely "unable to serve". But I guess the IETF would rather
deploy the most onerous, heavy-weight bureacratic process it can find (one
intended for entirely different circumstances), as opposed to using the
capability _already in its process documents exactly for cases like this_.
Noel