Barry
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote:
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