Doug Barton <dougb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I strongly urge folks who think as Doug does to _read_ RFC 3777. Note that the recall process can only start with 20 "members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee" petitioning to the Internet Society President. If that happens, the recall process will start; if not, it won't. If the process starts, the Secretariat must go through the process for selecting a nominating committee (separate from "the" nominating committee) excluding the petitioners above. Presumably liaisons also need to be selected. This process won't be "quick". BCP 101, IMHO, does allow for a vacancy to "occur" by other means than recall, though it certainly doesn't try to specify these. Perhaps it needs to be updated to cover vacancy by abandonment... I can but suggest that the nominating committee be asked to select a replacement _promptly_ while we see whether a recall is started and discuss the proper update to BCP 101. If that replacement is selected before the issue is "resolved", the person could participate "informally" without vote until there is some resolution. Myself, I don't expect to petition or volunteer to serve on a recall committee. The recall process isn't intended to be "practical", IMHO, and seems intended only to prod the subject of recall to resign. In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer find it scary. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>