On 10/23/2012 01:07 PM, David Kessens wrote: > > Doug, > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> >> You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore >> one. > > No procedure is ignored. That is a matter of interpretation. > BCP 101 does not define the rules for declaring a position vacant. In > absense of such rules, the IAOC decided to consult with the community > whether the community agrees that the position is now vacant. While I applaud the IAOC for not acting unilaterally on their beliefs, what the community (at least parts of it) are saying is that their belief that the situation is ambiguous is incorrect. Or, put another way, no; I do not agree that the position is currently vacant. > Another avenue, which is also mentioned in the BCP, that could have been > followed is the recall procedure. However, the IAOC felt that it was not > really intended for a situation where somebody apparently has vacated their > position. It's the "apparently" that is troublesome. With due respect to Marshall (since I don't know his circumstances) he seems to have become derelict in his duty, therefore the recall procedure should be initiated. To do otherwise would be setting a very bad precedent. You asked for feedback, you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action. You have also received volunteers for the recall process. Rather than spending more time on trying to justify declaring the position vacant, why not get started on that recall? Doug