Re: [RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies]

[Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bob, everyone,

As I've mentioned, I'd prefer an alternative to what the authors have written.  Call this the "let's program ourselves out of a paper bag" option, when we all agree.  This may be a rule we would wish to generalize.  Here is the basis for what I propose:

1. We have existing procedures to resolve contested removals – the recall process.
2. "Uncontested" essentially means that we as a community are in unanimous agreement that the position is vacant.  That means that by definition, any "no" votes from a body means it's contested.
3. The least amount of power should be delegated to our bodies as is necessary for the organization's smooth operation.
4. Procedural arguments on the IETF list are tiresome, when we all agree on the right outcome ;-)
   

With that in mind, I've attempted to reduce changes to a more simplified form, as follows:

In draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00.txt, Section 3.3, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs,

OLD:

   For vacancies due to uncontested, sustained absence, the IETF body
   making that determination will issue an Extended Last Call to the
   community.  The Last Call will explain the basis for declaring the
   position vacant and include a summary of efforts to contact the
   member to resolve the issue.

   The results of the Last Call are assessed by the IETF body, with a
   two-thirds vote of the body.

NEW:

    When an IETF body unanimously believes that a position on that
    body has been vacated, they may request confirmation of this by
    the community through an Extended Last Call with their reasoning.
    Should no objections be received during that period, the position is
    said to be vacant.


Eliot