On 10/24/2012 5:49 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote: >> I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where >> (arguably for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that >> should be infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedure >> because it _is_ the procedure. And then use the opportunity to >> improve it. > > The existence of the recall procedure does not imply that there isn't > any other way for a seat to become vacant. For example, a seat can > become vacant when an I* member resigns or dies, and there is no need > for a recall in those cases. The 2 examples you gave are (as someone else pointed out) incontrovertibly objective criteria, as is the explicit mention of the use of the recall procedure in BCP 101. Nothing in the text suggests an unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant." For Melinda's benefit, in _addition_ to the process issue I am also not in agreement with declaring the position vacant in this manner. Doug