Re: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)

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

 



and IAOC is unable to change its own quorum requirement because . . .
it can't achieve the necessary quorum!!

Now that _is_ a serious administrative oversight.

--


On 26 October 2012 02:21, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
>>
>> Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an
>> extended period is inhibiting their activities.....
>
> This is the part which really confuses me.  Why is this such an urgent
> matter?
>
> The stated reason in the IAOC request for community feedback was
> difficulty in getting a quorum:
>
>     "Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much
>      harder to get a quorum."
>
> I was trying to figure out what the quorum requirements were, so I
> checked out RFC 4071.  There I found:
>
>    The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making rules,
>    including its rules for quorum, conflict of interest, and breaking of
>    ties.  These rules shall be made public.
>
> I am not sure these are latest rules, but [1] states:
>
>     "A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the
>      IAOC then in office. All decisions of the members must be
>      approved by majority vote of the members then in office."
>
> [1]  http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-2010.pdf
>
> So that means the quorum requirement is 5 people --- out of the 9
> IAOC members.  OK, so if Marshall has been AWOL, there must be at
> least four other people who are also not showing up if quorom is not
> being achieved, which would seem to indicate a problem that extends
> beyond just that of a single person.
>
> The other potential problem is that the decision making process seems
> to currently require a majority of the IAOC members, and not a
> majority of the IAOC members who are attending a meeting.  This means
> that if only five IAOC members attend an IAOC meeting, all five would
> have to act unaminously to make a decision.
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
>
>                                                 - Ted
>
> P.S.  And if the IAOC is empowered to change its quorum and decision
> making rules, is there some reason why they can't unanimously (if
> there are only five people who are paying attention and attending
> meetings) chose to set quorom to be say 3 or 4 people, and perhaps
> only require a majority of the IAOC members in attendance?
>
> This is something that appears could be done without having to make
> any variances to existing procedure, or to make any emergency rule
> changes.
>


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