Re: Just so I'm clear

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

 



On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

Except that, unfortunately, it isn't (reasonable). The equivalent
situation is something akin to a corporation's bylaws. Given that there
are 2 procedures actually defined in BCP 101 (vacant, and recall) it is
not Ok to simply make up a new procedure.

With all due respect to Marshall, he has clearly abrogated his duty, and
is subject to recall. While the argument of "not communicative ==
vacant" is attractive for its expedience, the document not only does not
say that, it has specific language that defines what to do in the case
that a member is not doing their job, "abrogates his or her duties ->
recall."

>>> 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.

Several of us have said it several times now.

All that said, I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that
nothing new has been said on this thread for a while now, and it's high
time we got the opinion of competent legal counsel. If we have a strong
legal opinion that declaring the position vacant by fiat is an
acceptable course of action, I will drop my objection.

Doug


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