In message <[email protected]>, Margaret Wass erman writes: > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Doug Barton wrote: > > I get what you're saying, but this is one of those times where (arguably > > for the better) we've created a difficult procedure that should be > > infrequently exercised. We should follow the procedure because it _is_ > > the procedure. And then use the opportunity to improve it. > > The existence of the recall procedure does not imply that there isn't any > other way for a seat to become vacant. For example, a seat can become > vacant when an I* member resigns or dies, and there is no need for a > recall in those cases. > > I think it is reasonable for the IAOC to set it's own (reasonable, > consistent) bar for deciding that a sitting member has vacated his/her > seat through lack of attendance and lack of response. No recall should > be needed in that case to replace the missing member, any more than if > the person had explicitly resigned. The IAOC sent a long list of things > that they have done to contact Marshall, and he has not responded. It > seems impossible that he has not received any of those contacts, so his > lack of response is indicative, IMO, that he has indeed vacated his seat.
But we don't have rules that say, "failure to attend for X period, without permission, will result in the position being declared vacant". I we did this would be simple. I don't think we have any choice from a proceedural point of view other than to start recall proceedings. > I share the hope of the IAOC and others that Marshall is okay, and that > he will return to the IETF when he can. I appreciate his contributions > throughout the years, and I would be happy to see him return to continue > making those contributions. For now, though, he has vacated his IAOC > seat and should be replaced. > > Margaret -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
