Re: Just so I'm clear

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/25/2012 12:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 24/10/2012 20:34, Doug Barton wrote:
> ...
>> ... Nothing in the text suggests an
>> unfettered right of creating new definitions of "vacant."
> 
> You mean, new compared to the first definition in Merriam-Webster.com?
> 
> 1: not occupied by an incumbent, possessor, or officer <a vacant office> <vacant thrones>

C'mon Brian, not helpful. We're talking about the BCP 101 "definition of
vacant" which unfortunately is not nearly so precise. If there were no
mention of 3777 in the text then there would appear to be more leeway in
declaring a position vacant.

> Objectively and factually, that seems to be the case.

I get that this is what you believe to be true, however what some of us
are saying is that we don't agree. Given that the only choices are
"vacant, or recall;" and given that the vacant state of the seat isn't
100% clear, at this time recall is the only option.

Doug


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]