Re: Just so I'm clear

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

 



On 25/10/2012 19:40, Doug Barton wrote:
> 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.

There is no definition of "vacant" or "vacancy" in RFC 3777 (except for the
special case of a mid-term vacancy caused by the appointment of the member
to another IETF position). Therefore it seems reasonable to resort
to the dictionary.

> 
>> 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. 

Actually I haven't seen that. I've seen people assert that our process
doesn't document the case of a non-responsive absentee member, but I
haven't seen anyone deny that we have an empty seat.

  Brian


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