Umm.. no. When would you consider the office vacant? Missing one meeting, missing two? Not calling in for a week, a month, two months? Etc. I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? I'm in the service and on a classified assignment for three months? Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction? On a spiritual retreat that ends when you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF? In rehab for 30-90 days for drug or gambling addiction? We have a process. The IAOC has made its case. Let's let the IETF follow its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant. After all, its already (only?) been two months. Another month or less shouldn't hurt that much. And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken for everything. So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything. (Seriously, I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove, if all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!) As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in and of itself. Later, Mike At 02:42 PM 10/23/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a > >> vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF > >> rules. > > > I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be > > followed. > >Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use >in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut? > >I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures, >but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient >to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so >asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the >general spirit. > >And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever >happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or >proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point. > > Noel