At 15:51 25-10-2012, Sam Hartman wrote:
2) IETF process documents require approval by the ISOC BOT.
Not really. The ISOC Board of Trustees is not in the loop when it
comes to IETF document approval.
3) There is a variance procedure. I've always been puzzled by it because
it seems to require exactly the same things as approving a new procedure
plus extra work.
It's generally a bad idea to make rules to address a specific case or
to craft rules to favor or take action against one party. A variance
procedure is useful for unforeseen procedural issues. Without it a
system ends up being rigid. The problem with variance is generally
the "collateral and precedential effects of granting a variance".
At 00:11 26-10-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What he said. Common sense should prevail. We can fix *this* tiny gap in
our procedures in due course, but we will need to apply common sense again
the next time we find a tiny gap.
Common sense is rarely used as a justification as there isn't IETF
Consensus on the meaning of "common sense". I edited the text posted
by the IAOC Chair [1]:
The IAOC believes that it is reasonable to fill his position for the
remainder of his term as the IAOC has been unable to communicate with him
since 1 August 2012.
It's going to be difficult to argue that it is not reasonable to fill
the position. Now, if someone argues that it is unreasonable, you
can try to show that the person is being unreasonable or you can
accept the opinion. The latter is somewhat related to the notion of
consensus. The former raises questions about the presumption of good faith.
At 18:21 25-10-2012, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Still, I'm curious why the absence of one person is so great that
people want to make emergency rule changes and why people are treating
this as some kind of constitutional crisis. Is there part of the
story which I am missing?
It's an awkward situation. "The IAOC proposed this approach because
we think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment" [2].
At 13:44 25-10-2012, Doug Barton wrote:
Without any personal knowledge of his circumstances, I'm not prepared to
judge him.
Yes.
At 11:40 25-10-2012, Doug Barton wrote:
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.
One generally takes a three-way hum [3].
Regards,
-sm
1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg10812.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75414.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75523.html