On 10/26/2012 12:20 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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.
Except that, unfortunately, it isn't (reasonable). The equivalent situation is something akin to a corporation's bylaws. Given that there are 2 procedures actually defined in BCP 101 (vacant, and recall) it is not Ok to simply make up a new procedure. With all due respect to Marshall, he has clearly abrogated his duty, and is subject to recall. While the argument of "not communicative == vacant" is attractive for its expedience, the document not only does not say that, it has specific language that defines what to do in the case that a member is not doing their job, "abrogates his or her duties -> recall." >>> 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. Several of us have said it several times now. All that said, I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that nothing new has been said on this thread for a while now, and it's high time we got the opinion of competent legal counsel. If we have a strong legal opinion that declaring the position vacant by fiat is an acceptable course of action, I will drop my objection. Doug
