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. > >> 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. Brian
