Bob, I've read through the draft, and would prefer a different approach. Since we already have a recall procedure for contested removals, this draft should focus itself on uncontested removals, and really just *absense*. How do you test if something is uncontested? Easy enough: ask the IETF community. If a single person objects, let's call that "contested" and go with the other procedure.
Eliot On 10/24/12 6:14 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > The draft that proposes changes to the RFC3777/BCP10 to deal with vacancies > is now available. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00 > > Bob > > -------------------- > > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Reply-to: internet-dra...@ietf.org > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00.txt > X-C5I-RSN: 1/0/935/46939/50333 > > A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : RFC 3777 Update for Vacancies > Author(s) : D. Crocker, et al > Filename : draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd > Pages : 4 > Date : Oct. 24, 2012 > > BCP 10 (RFC 3777) specifies IETF processes for selection, > confirmation and recall of appointees to IETF positions. It also > refers to the mechanism of resignation as part of a sequence that > moves a sitting member to a new IETF position. However it does not > more generally deal with vacancies created by resignation, death or > uncontested, sustained absence from participation. This update to > BCP 10 specifies procedures for handling vacancies. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-genarea-bcp10upd-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >
