and IAOC is unable to change its own quorum requirement because . . . it can't achieve the necessary quorum!!
Now that _is_ a serious administrative oversight. -- On 26 October 2012 02:21, Theodore Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:19:26PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: >> >> Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an >> extended period is inhibiting their activities..... > > This is the part which really confuses me. Why is this such an urgent > matter? > > The stated reason in the IAOC request for community feedback was > difficulty in getting a quorum: > > "Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much > harder to get a quorum." > > I was trying to figure out what the quorum requirements were, so I > checked out RFC 4071. There I found: > > The IAOC decides the details about its decision-making rules, > including its rules for quorum, conflict of interest, and breaking of > ties. These rules shall be made public. > > I am not sure these are latest rules, but [1] states: > > "A quorum for a meeting of the IAOC shall be a majority of the > IAOC then in office. All decisions of the members must be > approved by majority vote of the members then in office." > > [1] http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-2010.pdf > > So that means the quorum requirement is 5 people --- out of the 9 > IAOC members. OK, so if Marshall has been AWOL, there must be at > least four other people who are also not showing up if quorom is not > being achieved, which would seem to indicate a problem that extends > beyond just that of a single person. > > The other potential problem is that the decision making process seems > to currently require a majority of the IAOC members, and not a > majority of the IAOC members who are attending a meeting. This means > that if only five IAOC members attend an IAOC meeting, all five would > have to act unaminously to make a decision. > > Still, I'm curious why the absence of one person is so great that > people want to make emergency rule changes and why people are treating > this as some kind of constitutional crisis. Is there part of the > story which I am missing? > > Regards, > > - Ted > > P.S. And if the IAOC is empowered to change its quorum and decision > making rules, is there some reason why they can't unanimously (if > there are only five people who are paying attention and attending > meetings) chose to set quorom to be say 3 or 4 people, and perhaps > only require a majority of the IAOC members in attendance? > > This is something that appears could be done without having to make > any variances to existing procedure, or to make any emergency rule > changes. >
