Re: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
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 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. >
Re: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
>> would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such >> as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," > > Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This > is a straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an > opportunity to exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process > would be an injustice. If the IETF has wound itself into such > bureaucratic knots that we can't just make an exceptional decision in > exceptional circumstances, we are in much worse trouble than I > thought. > > A +1 +(much more than 1, actually)
Re: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
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.
RE: Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such > > as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," > > Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is a > straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an opportunity to > exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process would be an injustice. If > the IETF has wound itself into such bureaucratic knots that we can't just > make an exceptional decision in exceptional circumstances, we are in much > worse trouble than I thought. Clearly the IAOC is inadequately staffed if one person missing for an extended period is inhibiting their activities. Beyond that, in this specific case, someone needs to ask counsel about the issues StJohns raised. Logic and common sense have no utility in the legal system, so making arguments in favor of a logical outcome are simply a waste of time. We have already wasted 2 days of the procedurally defined recall, so if it is so urgent that the position gets filled, that should have already started. Clearly this is not urgent because people would rather argue about why the defined process is too much of a burden, and won't take the simple step of asking counsel for an opinion on concrete legal concerns. Since observed behavior shows this is not urgent, then take the next 6 weeks to define a new process, then another 6 weeks to demonstrate vacancy after the new process is defined, then another 6 weeks to find and vet the replacement. If you really want it done faster than that, start the defined recall now and stop arguing why it is overkill. Tony
Exceptional cases (was: don't overthink)
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > would be wrong. The idea here is that applying _punitive_ action (such > as removal from a position) retroactively is not "fair," Oh, for heaven's sake. This is nothing to do with punishment. This is a straightforward administrative problem. Turning this into an opportunity to exercise a heavyweight and in fact punitive process would be an injustice. If the IETF has wound itself into such bureaucratic knots that we can't just make an exceptional decision in exceptional circumstances, we are in much worse trouble than I thought. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
