On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wait just one minute..... > > > Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the > position). I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only to ways to vacate a position. Those two are obvious possibilities, but "went away and actively refused to respond to queries" seems like a reasonable one as well. > He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. > > I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be > followed. Isn't it obvious? Given a choice of the two procedures, and given that Nomcom is already choosing an IAOC member, declaring the seat vacant is way easier. > Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for volunteers. Do the recall > committee selection prior to the IETF, present your case to the recall > committee at the IETF and stand back and let them do the work. > > I appreciate the pain of having a member go AWOL, but I see no basis for > declaring the position vacant based on current practice. Ummmm, what current practice are you referring to? Has something like this happened in the past decade or two? > I would consider that your email constitutes evidence that the IAOC has asked > for a recall petition to be circulated. I would consider that the list of > grievances you've posted constitutes sufficient grounds for the petition. That's an interesting reading, given that what the email says is "we consider the seat vacant". > I would estimate that you have sufficient support for the petition to be > confirmed, but I don't see anything so critical that would suggest that the > recall process need not be followed. > > I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the > recall committee. I'm willing to let the IAOC define the seat vacant, because it clearly is, and there is no specific definition of "vacant" that disagrees with the logical conclusion. --Paul Hoffman
