Mike has convinced me that we should be following the recall process. So I will change my initial "Yes," to a "No; we have to follow the process we've set up. Do a recall."
Barry On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote: > Umm.. no. > > When would you consider the office vacant? Missing one meeting, missing > two? Not calling in for a week, a month, two months? Etc. I'm currently > in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? I'm in the > service and on a classified assignment for three months? Trapped in a > hospital for 6 weeks for traction? On a spiritual retreat that ends when > you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF? In rehab for 30-90 days for > drug or gambling addiction? > > We have a process. The IAOC has made its case. Let's let the IETF follow > its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant. After > all, its already (only?) been two months. Another month or less shouldn't > hurt that much. > > And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken > for everything. So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's > broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything. (Seriously, > I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove, if > all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!) > > As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered > letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's > views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in > and of itself. > > Later, Mike >
