> From: David Morris <dwm@xxxxxxxxx>
> someone unsatisfied with a business decision by the adjusted IAOC
> membership could sue based on documented process not being followed to
> appoint the membership.
Nothing can stop someone from filing a suit, no matter what you do (even if
you do follow procedure). But try looking at it this way.
We're all agreed that the IETF in plenary mode (i.e. all of us) can change
any/all policy/procedures, right?
So, view the original call from the IAOC as a request to the IETF, in formal
plenary mode, to make the following policy/procedure changes/etc:
- To declare that, due to an oversight on our part at the time of drafting,
our existing policy/procedure does not handle certain cases, so we are
_temporarily_ (see below) setting up an ad hoc procedure to handle those
cases;
- That said temporary ad hoc procedure is to have the IETF in plenary mode
decide/declare that positions are vacant due to the withdrawal of the holder.
The call also make the following procedural request:
- That, following that temporary ad hoc procedure, in the particular case in
the original call, the holder be declared to have vacated, due to his long
lack of communication, despite _extensive_ attempts to contact him.
So if people all hum to OK all that, it has _just as much legitimacy_ as
_any other policy/procedure set into place by the IETF in plenary mode_.
And of course we all recognize that we need to write down non-ad hoc
policy/procedure to handle such cases, an effort which has already started.
> From: "John Levine" <johnl@xxxxxxxxx>
> Having reread RFC 4071, I don't see a rule that says that the death of
> a member will result in the position being declared vacant, either. Nor
> are there any rules that say what documentation would be required to
> establish that someone had died.
> At some point we have to allow a sliver of common sense to intervene so
> people can do reasonable things to solve problems.
Exactly.
I'm really boggled at the amount of time and energy which has been wasted
arguing about this point. Don't we have better things to spend our time on?
It's pretty clear he's checked out, and needs to be replaced. We ought to
focus on the most economical way to achieve that purely bureacratic action.
Noel