On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Agreed. It could be used for that, but I don't see it as required. > We aren't dealing with alleged misbehaviour. Where I come from failure to fulfill the duties of the position is misbehaviour. I think it would be serious lack of respect for Marshall to not follow the only documented procedure for removing someone from a position. After all, he has spent many years contributing to the IETF, including the definition of the removal procedure. FWIW, in some sense, this is a good first test case for the procedure in that I don't sense an inclination by anyone to oppose the outcome of removal. At the minimum, there should probably be a simpler procedure for removal in a case like this where responsibilities have be abandoned. But we don't have that alternative now, so I think we must follow what we have already defined. We might also want to consider a documented procedure like the 25th ammendment for temporary removal. David Morris