Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:49 AM, The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and a member of the IAOC since 2009. However, he recently stopped participating in the IAOC and Trust. First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this. I hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him. [ deep breath ] That said, I believe Bob made a case: Regardless of definition there seems to be a problem. Reading this thread I am sensitive to the arguments that we have a process that prevents people being removed without due diligence and I understand that if one does not follow the procedure one may be creating dangerous and exploitable precedents. However, I also feel we should -as an organization- be more pragmatic at times. It seems that the IAOC is trying to be diligent in solving a delicate situation most transparently and try to have buy in from the community. This is the type of pragmatism that is IMHO lives not to the letter but to the spirit of our documents. Therefore, without wanting to set precedent, I support this cause of action. I also offer my signature under the recall procedure, in case pragmatism doesn't prevail. --Olaf NLnet Labs Olaf M. Kolkman www.NLnetLabs.nl o...@nlnetlabs.nl Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
There seems to me to be a constitutional issue that has not been addressed, and may well bedevil us in the future: In any collective body, there is a concept of a quorum, which is set high enough to ensure that the actions of any meeting represent the opinions of the body as a whole, and which is set low enough that the expected level of absences will not prevent business from being done. The current crisis is (apparently) due to the chronic absence of *one* member causing *chronic* failures of the IAOC to achieve a quorum. This suggests to me that the quorum of the IAOC is too high to allow it to reliably conduct business -- after all, any of a thousand accidents can cause one member to be absent for a long period of time. What are the quorum rules of the IAOC? Should they be revised? Dale
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Olaf and all, First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this. I hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him. [ deep breath ] Exactly. This is why I hope that some of his best freinds will try to contact him personally, or at least figure out when it would be possible to contact him personally. Should not we help Marshall to come back? Unfortunately, I can not, however, there are no others? Best, Géza
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Dale, On Nov 1, 2012, at 9:38 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote: There seems to me to be a constitutional issue that has not been addressed, and may well bedevil us in the future: In any collective body, there is a concept of a quorum, which is set high enough to ensure that the actions of any meeting represent the opinions of the body as a whole, and which is set low enough that the expected level of absences will not prevent business from being done. The current crisis is (apparently) due to the chronic absence of *one* member causing *chronic* failures of the IAOC to achieve a quorum. This suggests to me that the quorum of the IAOC is too high to allow it to reliably conduct business -- after all, any of a thousand accidents can cause one member to be absent for a long period of time. What are the quorum rules of the IAOC? Should they be revised? The rules for a quorum are defined in the IAOC administrative procedures. They can be found in Section 3 at: http://iaoc.ietf.org/docs/IAOC-Administrative-Procedures-9-16-2010.pdf The issue with a quorum is not if a single member can not attend a meeting, it is what happens if there are also a few members who for reasons like travel can not attend. This has happened once since the last IETF meeting. Having one person missing over a long period of time makes it harder to obtain a quorum, it doesn't make it impossible. It would be a bigger problem if another member could not make a number of meetings (for whatever reason). There are a number of other reasons why a missing member is a problem. They may have specific responsibilities they are not performing (in this case, IAOC liaison to the NomCom and IETF Trust chair), membership on subcommittees, and, of course, one less voice in discussions in the IAOC and IETF trust. Having fewer people increases the work load on everyone else and creates less diversity in views and expertise. Bob Hinden IAOC Chair Dale
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Géza, On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Turchanyi Geza wrote: Olaf and all, First: I cannot help to think there is a personal tragedy behind all this. I hope Marshall makes it back to this community because I will miss him. Same here. Exactly. This is why I hope that some of his best freinds will try to contact him personally, or at least figure out when it would be possible to contact him personally. Should not we help Marshall to come back? Unfortunately, I can not, however, there are no others? Russ Housley and Ray Pelletier were able to visit Marshall at his home last Friday. They discussed the situation with Marshall including describing the discussion on the IETF list. He confirmed he had not been reading his email since early August and said he would consider resigning. We have not received any communication from him since then. Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 11/01/2012 01:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Russ Housley and Ray Pelletier were able to visit Marshall at his home last Friday. They discussed the situation with Marshall including describing the discussion on the IETF list. He confirmed he had not been reading his email since early August and said he would consider resigning. We have not received any communication from him since then. Bob, Thanks for providing this additional information. It's good to know that Marshall is aware of the situation, alive and hopefully well, albeit overburdened. With any kind of luck he will resign, and make the recall moot. However given the continued lack of communication starting the recall process now is a reasonable and appropriate step. Regards, Doug
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Dear Bob, It is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. As far as I know, his wife had medical issue this year. Thank you, Tina On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:50 AM, The IAOC bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and a member of the IAOC since 2009. However, he recently stopped participating in the IAOC and Trust. The IAOC has made extensive efforts to contact Marshall about this, but has not received any response. Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much harder to get a quorum. The specifics of his absence include: - Missed the IAOC calls on 11 October 2012, 10 September 2012, 6 September 2012, 23 August 2012 - No email received from Marshall since 1 August 2012 on the IAOC, IETF Trust, and related private lists. Marshall is subscribed to the IAOC and IETF Trust lists and consequently should have received email discussing regular IAOC/Trust business including email on this topic. We have tried to contact Marshall over this time period using email 14 times, telephone 6 times (leaving messages), SMS messages seven times, Linkedin messages once, Facebook messages once, and registered postal mail twice. We have not received any response from Marshall. It is also our understanding that Marshall has stopped participating in other IETF lists and stopped working on IDs he authored. On 6 September 2012 the IAOC appointed a replacement liaison to the IETF NomCom after learning from the NomCom chair that Marshall had not responded to emails from the NomCom chair. Based on all of this, the IAOC has concluded that Marshall's IAOC position is vacant. The IAOC has reviewed BCP101 and concludes it does not handle this case very well. BCP101 says that if an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties the recall process in BCP10/RFC3777 may be used. The specific text is: IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best interests of the IETF community. Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777 [RFC3777]. IAOC members are not, however, subject to recall by the bodies that appointed them. If a vacancy occurs among the appointed members, this is filled by the appointing body for that position according to its procedures. The conditions for determining that a vacancy exist are not well-defined. BCP10/RFC3777 (Section 7) defines a process where a recall petition is signed by 20 NomCom qualified IETFers, the petition is sent to the ISOC President, the ISOC President appoints a recall committee chair, the chair follows normal NomCom procedures to select 20 committee members (this includes a public call for volunteers, max of two per organization, random selection of volunteers, etc.), recall committee investigates, recall committee votes and requires a 3/4 majority to pass the recall. We think this process was not intended to be used when a sitting IAOC, IESG, or IAB member vacates his/her position. We believe that the intended use of this process was for determining whether a member should leave a position who is unwilling to leave and who has harmed the IETF. That is clearly not the case in this situation, to the contrary, we would have preferred Marshall to continue. It doesn't seem appropriate in this case, or when an member is unable to participate due to illness or death. The IAOC believes that it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant and, therefore, to ask NomCom to fill his position for the remainder of his term (~15 months.) The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Responses are solicited by no later than 5 November 2012. If there is not community support for this approach, the IAOC will pursue the BCP10/RFC3777 recall petition path because having a missing member for 15 months significantly effects the operation of the IAOC and IETF Trust. Please send your comments to ietf@ietf.org. The IAOC and IETF chairs will review the community feedback and make a determination if there is support for declaring the position vacant. I would add that we all feel very badly for Marshall given his many years of service to the IETF. We really don't understand why he is not responding and are concerned about it. Unfortunately, we don't know what else to do given his lack of response to our many attempts to contact him. Bob Hinden IAOC Chair p.s. A draft is in progress that proposes an update to BCP10/RFC3777 similar to what we propose here to handle how cases of vacancy be handled. The issue applies to
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 23/10/2012 21:07, David Kessens wrote: Doug, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore one. No procedure is ignored. BCP 101 does not define the rules for declaring a position vacant. In absense of such rules, the IAOC decided to consult with the community whether the community agrees that the position is now vacant. Exactly. To my mind, a member who ceases to participate, and fails to reply to messages indicating that the seat is about to be declared vacant, has created a vacancy. I think the IAOC is behaving appropriately. Another avenue, which is also mentioned in the BCP, that could have been followed is the recall procedure. However, the IAOC felt that it was not really intended for a situation where somebody apparently has vacated their position. Agreed. It could be used for that, but I don't see it as required. We aren't dealing with alleged misbehaviour. Brian Carpenter
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Bob wrote: Having his position declared vacant ... How long has it been since the last time he attended an IAOC or IETF meeting, or responded to an e-mail addressed directly to him? We have processes that involve timers (viz. I-Ds expire after 6 months), and so I am thinking we should discuss how long an IAOC member may be MIA before his/her seat is declared vacant or at risk of recall because of being MIA. I also have one more question. Have other modes of communication been attempted? For example: registered letters (via snail-mail) or phone calls? Regards, Ed J. -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com Sender: ietf-boun...@ietf.org Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:25:49 To: ietf@ietf.org Cc: Bob Hindenbob.hin...@gmail.com Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points. I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the NomCom to fill the reminder of Marshall's term. The community consensus will determine the answer to the query. We think the current procedures were not meant for this case and are not clear on the situation when to declare a position vacant. BCP101 says: Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777. The use of may usually means do this unless there is good reason to do otherwise. I think that is the case in this situation. The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc. Lastly, and I think most important, the IAOC proposed this approach because we think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment to Marshall. Marshall has been active in the IETF for many years and has made many important contributions. We proposed this course of action in respect to Marshall. We think it's better to not subject him to the formal RFC3777 recall process. Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally recalled. Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Agreed. It could be used for that, but I don't see it as required. We aren't dealing with alleged misbehaviour. Where I come from failure to fulfill the duties of the position is misbehaviour. I think it would be serious lack of respect for Marshall to not follow the only documented procedure for removing someone from a position. After all, he has spent many years contributing to the IETF, including the definition of the removal procedure. FWIW, in some sense, this is a good first test case for the procedure in that I don't sense an inclination by anyone to oppose the outcome of removal. At the minimum, there should probably be a simpler procedure for removal in a case like this where responsibilities have be abandoned. But we don't have that alternative now, so I think we must follow what we have already defined. We might also want to consider a documented procedure like the 25th ammendment for temporary removal. David Morris
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Since a few people are asking questions that were answered in the original email, here is a link to the mail that was sent to ietf-announce on October 22, 2012: https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=934k2=11277tid=1351092666 I thought this would be helpful since it was only sent to ietf-announce, not to the IETF list. Bob
RE: IAOC Request for community feedback
David Morris wrote: On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Agreed. It could be used for that, but I don't see it as required. We aren't dealing with alleged misbehaviour. Where I come from failure to fulfill the duties of the position is misbehaviour. My thoughts exactly. To a first order the 'urgency' implied by those arguing to bypass the recall process suggests masking another failure. In other words: failure to act on your part does not create a crisis on my part ... If the delay to run the recall process is creating a problem for the IAOC, the petition for recall should have started earlier in parallel with ongoing contact attempts. If contact occurred, the petition could have been abandoned. On the other hand, since there is time to waste arguing to bypass the recall process, there must not be any real urgency. While I can understand wanting to follow the simplest process, the expedient thing to do is follow the established process no matter how long that takes, because in the end you will end up there and will only have wasted time trying to work around it. As StJohns pointed out, there are repercussions outside the cozy den of the old-boysgirls club here. Has anyone asked council for their take on his points? If not, that should happen before anything else. Tony
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. +1 Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Tue 23/Oct/2012 01:49:41 +0200 The IAOC wrote: We have tried to contact Marshall over this time period [...] We think this process was not intended to be used when a sitting IAOC, IESG, or IAB member vacates his/her position. We believe that the intended use of this process was for determining whether a member should leave a position who is unwilling to leave and who has harmed the IETF. That is clearly not the case in this situation, to the contrary, we would have preferred Marshall to continue. It doesn't seem appropriate in this case, or when an member is unable to participate due to illness or death. We seem to be missing a keepalive option, to be applicable to IETF communities at large. AFAIK, Linkedin and Facebook are not better in this respect.
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Since you have his postal address, has anyone notified the police? The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and a member of the IAOC since 2009. However, he recently stopped participating in the IAOC and Trust. The IAOC has made extensive efforts to contact Marshall about this, but has not received any response. Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much harder to get a quorum. The specifics of his absence include: - Missed the IAOC calls on 11 October 2012, 10 September 2012, 6 September 2012, 23 August 2012 - No email received from Marshall since 1 August 2012 on the IAOC, IETF Trust, and related private lists. Marshall is subscribed to the IAOC and IETF Trust lists and consequently should have received email discussing regular IAOC/Trust business including email on this topic. We have tried to contact Marshall over this time period using email 14 times, telephone 6 times (leaving messages), SMS messages seven times, Linkedin messages once, Facebook messages once, and registered postal mail twice. We have not received any response from Marshall. It is also our understanding that Marshall has stopped participating in other IETF lists and stopped working on IDs he authored. On 6 September 2012 the IAOC appointed a replacement liaison to the IETF NomCom after learning from the NomCom chair that Marshall had not responded to emails from the NomCom chair. Based on all of this, the IAOC has concluded that Marshall's IAOC position is vacant. Seems to be a solid conclusion. Yoav
RE: IAOC Request for community feedback
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years, and I hope he is well and functioning. However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on the IAOC and it is important that the community is fully represented. So please ask NomCom to fill the vacant position. Adrian
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as vacant. On another note though, it is important to find out what happened to him as what you have written appears out of character for him (neglecting his duties). Do you have information on any of his next of kin, friends, other colleagues, neighbors who you can contact to verify if everything is well with him, even while his post is now vacant? On 23 October 2012 13:40, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years, and I hope he is well and functioning. However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on the IAOC and it is important that the community is fully represented. So please ask NomCom to fill the vacant position. Adrian
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula wrote: He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as vacant. On another note though, it is important to find out what happened to him as what you have written appears out of character for him (neglecting his duties). Do you have information on any of his next of kin, friends, other colleagues, neighbors who you can contact to verify if everything is well with him, even while his post is now vacant? I have exchanged Facebook mail with a family member who said that Marshall was focused on other activities geared to securing employment opportunities. Ray On 23 October 2012 13:40, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years, and I hope he is well and functioning. However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on the IAOC and it is important that the community is fully represented. So please ask NomCom to fill the vacant position. Adrian
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Thank you Pelletier On 23 October 2012 14:35, Pelletier Ray rpellet...@isoc.org wrote: On Oct 23, 2012, at 8:28 AM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula wrote: He has done tremendous work for the IETF. It however appaears as though he really is unreachable and it makes sense that the post be treated as vacant. On another note though, it is important to find out what happened to him as what you have written appears out of character for him (neglecting his duties). Do you have information on any of his next of kin, friends, other colleagues, neighbors who you can contact to verify if everything is well with him, even while his post is now vacant? I have exchanged Facebook mail with a family member who said that Marshall was focused on other activities geared to securing employment opportunities. Ray On 23 October 2012 13:40, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes, with regret. Marshall has done a lot of good stuff for us over the years, and I hope he is well and functioning. However, Marshall filled a community-appointed post on the IAOC and it is important that the community is fully represented. So please ask NomCom to fill the vacant position. Adrian -- *Senior Systems Administrator UZCHS- NECTAR Ward C10, Parirenyatwa Hospital Mazoe St, Avondale Harare Tel: +263772 148 889/890 x 320 Cell:0772588210*
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Lars Eggert wrote: On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leibabarryle...@computer.org wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. +1 +1 Ray Pelletier wrote: Marshall was focused on other activities That's good to hear. I was worried about him when I read the mail from Bob. And yes, this can happen with people. Dayjobs or businesses or personal issues can sometimes cause this. Lets welcome him back to the IETF when he finishes his other business. Jari
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/2012 03:01 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: Lars Eggert wrote: On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:42, Barry Leibabarryle...@computer.org wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. +1 +1 Ditto. Ray Pelletier wrote: Marshall was focused on other activities That's good to hear. I was worried about him when I read the mail from Bob. And yes, this can happen with people. Dayjobs or businesses or personal issues can sometimes cause this. Lets welcome him back to the IETF when he finishes his other business. Nicely said, S. Jari
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for volunteers. Do the recall committee selection prior to the IETF, present your case to the recall committee at the IETF and stand back and let them do the work. I appreciate the pain of having a member go AWOL, but I see no basis for declaring the position vacant based on current practice. I would consider that your email constitutes evidence that the IAOC has asked for a recall petition to be circulated. I would consider that the list of grievances you've posted constitutes sufficient grounds for the petition. I would estimate that you have sufficient support for the petition to be confirmed, but I don't see anything so critical that would suggest that the recall process need not be followed. I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the recall committee. Mike At 07:49 PM 10/22/2012, The IAOC wrote: The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. Marshall Eubanks has been a active IETF participant for many years and a member of the IAOC since 2009. However, he recently stopped participating in the IAOC and Trust. The IAOC has made extensive efforts to contact Marshall about this, but has not received any response. Given the size of the IAOC, a missing member makes it much harder to get a quorum. The specifics of his absence include: - Missed the IAOC calls on 11 October 2012, 10 September 2012, 6 September 2012, 23 August 2012 - No email received from Marshall since 1 August 2012 on the IAOC, IETF Trust, and related private lists. Marshall is subscribed to the IAOC and IETF Trust lists and consequently should have received email discussing regular IAOC/Trust business including email on this topic. We have tried to contact Marshall over this time period using email 14 times, telephone 6 times (leaving messages), SMS messages seven times, Linkedin messages once, Facebook messages once, and registered postal mail twice. We have not received any response from Marshall. It is also our understanding that Marshall has stopped participating in other IETF lists and stopped working on IDs he authored. On 6 September 2012 the IAOC appointed a replacement liaison to the IETF NomCom after learning from the NomCom chair that Marshall had not responded to emails from the NomCom chair. Based on all of this, the IAOC has concluded that Marshall's IAOC position is vacant. The IAOC has reviewed BCP101 and concludes it does not handle this case very well. BCP101 says that if an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties the recall process in BCP10/RFC3777 may be used. The specific text is: IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best interests of the IETF community. Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777 [RFC3777]. IAOC members are not, however, subject to recall by the bodies that appointed them. If a vacancy occurs among the appointed members, this is filled by the appointing body for that position according to its procedures. The conditions for determining that a vacancy exist are not well-defined. BCP10/RFC3777 (Section 7) defines a process where a recall petition is signed by 20 NomCom qualified IETFers, the petition is sent to the ISOC President, the ISOC President appoints a recall committee chair, the chair follows normal NomCom procedures to select 20 committee members (this includes a public call for volunteers, max of two per organization, random selection of volunteers, etc.), recall committee investigates, recall committee votes and requires a 3/4 majority to pass the recall. We think this process was not intended to be used when a sitting IAOC, IESG, or IAB member vacates his/her position. We believe that the intended use of this process was for determining whether a member should leave a position who is unwilling to leave and who has harmed the IETF. That is clearly not the case in this situation, to the contrary, we would have preferred Marshall to continue. It doesn't seem appropriate in this case, or when an member is unable to participate due to illness or death. The IAOC believes that it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant and, therefore, to ask NomCom to fill his position for the remainder of his term (~15 months.) The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Responses are solicited by no later than 5 November 2012. If there is not community
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut? I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures, but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the general spirit. And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point. Noel
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
At 16:49 22-10-2012, The IAOC wrote: The IAOC has reviewed BCP101 and concludes it does not handle this case very well. BCP101 says that if an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties the recall process in BCP10/RFC3777 may be used. The specific text is: IAOC members are subject to recall in the event that an IAOC member abrogates his or her duties or acts against the best interests of the IETF community. Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777 [RFC3777]. IAOC members are not, however, subject to recall by the bodies that appointed them. If a vacancy occurs among the appointed members, this is filled by the appointing body for that position according to its procedures. The conditions for determining that a vacancy exist are not well-defined. The above also affects the IETF Trust as the person is the Chair. The mid-term vacancy rules take effect when a sitting member is recalled from the open position. In other words the recall procedure can be used to determine the vacancy. The person was appointed by the community represented by NomCom. It would be problematic for the IAOC and IETF chairs to declare the position vacant. Regards, -sm
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 23/10/2012 13:16, Michael StJohns wrote: Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. In even stronger terms: if a person after many years of involvement and understanding of the rules, does not take the 5 minutes to write a letter saying 'I resign from the IOAC', I wonder what triggered that behavior. I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the recall committee. Same here. Olafur
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Umm.. no. When would you consider the office vacant? Missing one meeting, missing two? Not calling in for a week, a month, two months? Etc. I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? I'm in the service and on a classified assignment for three months? Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction? On a spiritual retreat that ends when you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF? In rehab for 30-90 days for drug or gambling addiction? We have a process. The IAOC has made its case. Let's let the IETF follow its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant. After all, its already (only?) been two months. Another month or less shouldn't hurt that much. And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken for everything. So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything. (Seriously, I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove, if all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!) As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in and of itself. Later, Mike At 02:42 PM 10/23/2012, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut? I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures, but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the general spirit. And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point. Noel
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/2012 11:42 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community concerning a vacancy that the IAOC feels is not adequately covered by existing IETF rules. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Because it's a fairly lengthy, complex, and effort-consuming, process to use in this kind of case - rather like using a pile-driver to crack a nut? The procedures are what they are, and the recall procedure provides a reasonable safeguard against abuse. By not following them you set a dangerous precedent. I hear you, and understand the concern about ignoring established procedures, but at the same time, calling for a hum from the IETF community is sufficient to get the _entire procedure_ changed, a far more consequential act, so asking for a hum to temporarily bypass them seems to me to be acting in the general spirit. I here you, and understand your desire for expedience. But at the same time, the larger community has already expressed their will in establishing the procedure we have. It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset that hummed about establishing the procedure to justify this decision. There is also the risk of how abrogating our own procedures makes us look to those observing us from the outside. And of course we do need to update our procedures so that if this ever happens again, we don't face the choice of rolling out the pile-driver, or proceeding in an ad hoc way, but that's a separate point. No, it's a very cogent point, and one that should be pursued by interested parties who wish to modify the procedure for the next instance. To put this another way, if you think it is easy to get the hums you need to abrogate the procedure, it should be just as easy to accomplish the recall process. And actually doing it will greatly inform those who wish to improve the procedure for the future. Doug
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
I would support the call to use our defined recall procedures, even if it takes a few weeks longer. And not unnecessarily set a precedent. If you feel the rules are not suitable, than we should think about adjusting them. And be careful, it may take only a hum to change a procedure, but the discussions preceding that hum for a constructive change of such can take quite a bit longer. ;-) However, I would hope and recommend that we could follow the communication channel Ray established with a family member of Marshall. And maybe we can get a 3 minute time piece from him (or someone authorised to speak on his behalf). If he would resign due to the fact that he has no time at the moment and for the foreseeable future, everything would be settled without trouble. Best regards, Tobias On 23/10/12 13:55, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote: On 23/10/2012 13:16, Michael StJohns wrote: Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. In even stronger terms: if a person after many years of involvement and understanding of the rules, does not take the 5 minutes to write a letter saying 'I resign from the IOAC', I wonder what triggered that behavior. I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the recall committee. Same here. Olafur
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
From: Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net When would you consider the office vacant? The complete data on what attempts had been made to communicate with him were given to us all, so we can all form our own individual opinion as to whether sufficient conditions had been met. I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? ... Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction? In all of these cases one presumably wouldn't vanish without a word of explanation. It's that, as much as the non-performance, that's an issue. You know as well as I do that in a normal company, if an employee stopped showing up for work with no notice, no communication about the situation, and that went on for months, the person would find themselves terminated. From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset that hummed about establishing the procedure to justify this decision. What, we can't change a procedure unless the set of people who previously OK'd it now agree to change it? I don't think so. A hum is a hum is a hum. Noel
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/2012 12:21 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset that hummed about establishing the procedure to justify this decision. What, we can't change a procedure unless the set of people who previously OK'd it now agree to change it? I don't think so. A hum is a hum is a hum. You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore one. Those are entirely different things. You've also snipped out the entire portion of my message where I talked about actually changing the procedure, and why that may actually be a good thing. I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue by arguing against a straw-man that I did not actually propose, or if you just didn't understand what I wrote previously. If the latter I apologize, and would be happy to clarify if necessary. Doug
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Doug, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore one. No procedure is ignored. BCP 101 does not define the rules for declaring a position vacant. In absense of such rules, the IAOC decided to consult with the community whether the community agrees that the position is now vacant. Another avenue, which is also mentioned in the BCP, that could have been followed is the recall procedure. However, the IAOC felt that it was not really intended for a situation where somebody apparently has vacated their position. David Kessens ---
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/2012 01:07 PM, David Kessens wrote: Doug, On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore one. No procedure is ignored. That is a matter of interpretation. BCP 101 does not define the rules for declaring a position vacant. In absense of such rules, the IAOC decided to consult with the community whether the community agrees that the position is now vacant. While I applaud the IAOC for not acting unilaterally on their beliefs, what the community (at least parts of it) are saying is that their belief that the situation is ambiguous is incorrect. Or, put another way, no; I do not agree that the position is currently vacant. Another avenue, which is also mentioned in the BCP, that could have been followed is the recall procedure. However, the IAOC felt that it was not really intended for a situation where somebody apparently has vacated their position. It's the apparently that is troublesome. With due respect to Marshall (since I don't know his circumstances) he seems to have become derelict in his duty, therefore the recall procedure should be initiated. To do otherwise would be setting a very bad precedent. You asked for feedback, you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action. You have also received volunteers for the recall process. Rather than spending more time on trying to justify declaring the position vacant, why not get started on that recall? Doug
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Mike has convinced me that we should be following the recall process. So I will change my initial Yes, to a No; we have to follow the process we've set up. Do a recall. Barry On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, Michael StJohns wrote: Umm.. no. When would you consider the office vacant? Missing one meeting, missing two? Not calling in for a week, a month, two months? Etc. I'm currently in jury duty - and sequestered for a major murder trial? I'm in the service and on a classified assignment for three months? Trapped in a hospital for 6 weeks for traction? On a spiritual retreat that ends when you achieve oneness with the tao of the IETF? In rehab for 30-90 days for drug or gambling addiction? We have a process. The IAOC has made its case. Let's let the IETF follow its process and do the official thing to declare the office vacant. After all, its already (only?) been two months. Another month or less shouldn't hurt that much. And for that matter, if the recall process is broken for this, it's broken for everything. So we should use this opportunity to figure out if it's broken, and if it is, figure out how to fix it for everything. (Seriously, I can think of a couple of AD's that I would have attempted to remove, if all that were needed were a hum on the list!!!) As part of this process, the recall committee should send a registered letter notifying Marshall of the recall petition, and requesting Marshall's views on the matter. It may not get any response which is a good datum in and of itself. Later, Mike
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us You've also snipped out the entire portion of my message where I talked about actually changing the procedure I happened to see one point I wanted to say something about (the 'hum group' thingy), that's all. And now that I've thought about this whole thing a bit more, I think Mike may have put his finger on the key point: just what is enough to consider the office vacant? His list of scenarios points out (implicitly) that we're probably going to have a very hard time codifying that, without wasting endless hours discussing and word-smithing. That being the case, probably the much easier, simpler and better formal procedure to set up, for use in these rare cases, is to put the facts of the particular case before the community, and let them decide if the actions in the particular case count as 'leaving the office vacant'. Which is, by an odd coincidence, just what's been done here. you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action. And considerably more saying it is. Look, using the full-blown recall process here is really disproportionate. That complex, lengthy process is appropriate for places where one is unhappy with what an office-holder is doing. It's a wholly different situation when someone's has effectively resigned by going incommunicado for months. I would like to point out that the United States Government is also happy to use very different mechanisms for the two cases: for removal of an officeholder over what they have done, the lengthy, complex, impeachment and trial process is specified. For someone who's just plain incapacitated, a much simpler process (a simple majority of the Cabinet) can act. From: Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org And maybe we can get a 3 minute time piece from him (or someone authorised to speak on his behalf). If he would resign due to the fact that he has no time at the moment and for the foreseeable future, everything would be settled without trouble. Now, that's by some distance the best suggestion I've heard yet. Can Ray (or whomever) contact that person they are in touch with, and pass in a message asking him if he wouldn't mind just formally quitting, so we don't have to waste inordinate amounts of time and energy either i) doing the recall thing, or ii) debating whether we need to do the full-blown recall or not? Noel
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: You asked for feedback, you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action. You have also received volunteers for the recall process. Rather than spending more time on trying to justify declaring the position vacant, why not get started on that recall? I strongly urge folks who think as Doug does to _read_ RFC 3777. Note that the recall process can only start with 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee petitioning to the Internet Society President. If that happens, the recall process will start; if not, it won't. If the process starts, the Secretariat must go through the process for selecting a nominating committee (separate from the nominating committee) excluding the petitioners above. Presumably liaisons also need to be selected. This process won't be quick. BCP 101, IMHO, does allow for a vacancy to occur by other means than recall, though it certainly doesn't try to specify these. Perhaps it needs to be updated to cover vacancy by abandonment... I can but suggest that the nominating committee be asked to select a replacement _promptly_ while we see whether a recall is started and discuss the proper update to BCP 101. If that replacement is selected before the issue is resolved, the person could participate informally without vote until there is some resolution. Myself, I don't expect to petition or volunteer to serve on a recall committee. The recall process isn't intended to be practical, IMHO, and seems intended only to prod the subject of recall to resign. In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer find it scary. -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Noel, From: Tobias Gondrom tobias.gond...@gondrom.org And maybe we can get a 3 minute time piece from him (or someone authorised to speak on his behalf). If he would resign due to the fact that he has no time at the moment and for the foreseeable future, everything would be settled without trouble. Now, that's by some distance the best suggestion I've heard yet. Can Ray (or whomever) contact that person they are in touch with, and pass in a message asking him if he wouldn't mind just formally quitting, so we don't have to waste inordinate amounts of time and energy either i) doing the recall thing, or ii) debating whether we need to do the full-blown recall or not? We have been trying to do that for the past month. No one we have talked to has been able to talk to him. For example, Marshall was active in Lift Port (http://liftport.com) where Marshall is listed as their CTO. I contacted them and they have not been able to reach him. Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only to ways to vacate a position. Those two are obvious possibilities, but went away and actively refused to respond to queries seems like a reasonable one as well. He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Isn't it obvious? Given a choice of the two procedures, and given that Nomcom is already choosing an IAOC member, declaring the seat vacant is way easier. Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for volunteers. Do the recall committee selection prior to the IETF, present your case to the recall committee at the IETF and stand back and let them do the work. I appreciate the pain of having a member go AWOL, but I see no basis for declaring the position vacant based on current practice. U, what current practice are you referring to? Has something like this happened in the past decade or two? I would consider that your email constitutes evidence that the IAOC has asked for a recall petition to be circulated. I would consider that the list of grievances you've posted constitutes sufficient grounds for the petition. That's an interesting reading, given that what the email says is we consider the seat vacant. I would estimate that you have sufficient support for the petition to be confirmed, but I don't see anything so critical that would suggest that the recall process need not be followed. I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the recall committee. I'm willing to let the IAOC define the seat vacant, because it clearly is, and there is no specific definition of vacant that disagrees with the logical conclusion. --Paul Hoffman
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. +1 I agree. Ray Pelletier wrote: Marshall was focused on other activities That's good to hear. I was worried about him when I read the mail from Bob. And yes, this can happen with people. Dayjobs or businesses or personal issues can sometimes cause this. Lets welcome him back to the IETF when he finishes his other business. Good to hear that he is (at least) still alive. Henk -- -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 -- Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
At 05:55 PM 10/23/2012, Paul Hoffman wrote: On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote: Wait just one minute. Marshal has neither resigned nor died (both of which would vacate the position). I don't see anything in BCP 10 that says those are the only to ways to vacate a position. Those two are obvious possibilities, but went away and actively refused to respond to queries seems like a reasonable one as well. Death is an objective evaluation. Resigned is an objective evaluation. went away is a subjective evaluation. refused to respond to queries - irrelevant unless you know why, and then it's a subjective evaluation. The recall committee gets to decide subjective questions. AFAIK that's why it's specified in this document. There is no other way specified in BCP101 for the position to become vacant. He apparently *has* abrogated his responsibilities. I'm not sure why the IAOC thinks that the recall procedure shouldn't be followed. Isn't it obvious? Given a choice of the two procedures, and given that Nomcom is already choosing an IAOC member, declaring the seat vacant is way easier. It would be easier to declare that we're not going to put the choice to the Nomcom and just have Russ pick the next member. But that's not what's written down. Get a petition signed. Run a 1 week call for volunteers. Do the recall committee selection prior to the IETF, present your case to the recall committee at the IETF and stand back and let them do the work. I appreciate the pain of having a member go AWOL, but I see no basis for declaring the position vacant based on current practice. U, what current practice are you referring to? Has something like this happened in the past decade or two? Exactly - we have no precedent, and I for one do not want to establish one. During my time as Nomcom chair a while back - we had a member that checked out on the IESG. We never contemplated declaring the position vacant, instead the Nomcom asked the chair at the time to suggest that the member resign. Fortunately, he was able to respond and we got the resignation. But had he not responded, I would have fought any attempt to replace him without first doing due process. I would consider that your email constitutes evidence that the IAOC has asked for a recall petition to be circulated. I would consider that the list of grievances you've posted constitutes sufficient grounds for the petition. That's an interesting reading, given that what the email says is we consider the seat vacant. No, the facts of the email are that he hasn't responded or attended. That's the evidence. The we consider the seat vacant is a verdict by a group of people not yet empowered to enforce that verdict. I would estimate that you have sufficient support for the petition to be confirmed, but I don't see anything so critical that would suggest that the recall process need not be followed. I'm willing to sign on to the petition. I'm willing to volunteer for the recall committee. I'm willing to let the IAOC define the seat vacant, because it clearly is, and there is no specific definition of vacant that disagrees with the logical conclusion. If Marshall showed up at the IETF in Atlanta, explaining that he had been absent for personal reasons now resolved, would you still feel the same way? I'm not willing to allow the IAOC to define the seat vacant, because it is not one of the powers delegated to them jointly or severally. --Paul Hoffman
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points. I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the NomCom to fill the reminder of Marshall's term. The community consensus will determine the answer to the query. We think the current procedures were not meant for this case and are not clear on the situation when to declare a position vacant. BCP101 says: Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777. The use of may usually means do this unless there is good reason to do otherwise. I think that is the case in this situation. The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc. Lastly, and I think most important, the IAOC proposed this approach because we think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment to Marshall. Marshall has been active in the IETF for many years and has made many important contributions. We proposed this course of action in respect to Marshall. We think it's better to not subject him to the formal RFC3777 recall process. Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally recalled. Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points. I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the NomCom to fill the reminder of Marshall's term. The community consensus will determine the answer to the query. We think the current procedures were not meant for this case and are not clear on the situation when to declare a position vacant. BCP101 says: Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777. The use of may usually means do this unless there is good reason to do otherwise. I think that is the case in this situation. The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc. Lastly, and I think most important, the IAOC proposed this approach because we think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment to Marshall. Marshall has been active in the IETF for many years and has made many important contributions. We proposed this course of action in respect to Marshall. We think it's better to not subject him to the formal RFC3777 recall process. Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally recalled. The result Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
On 10/23/12 4:25 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Responding to some of the discussion, I would like to raise a few points. I don't see how the IAOC has bypassed any rules. We are asking the community if it is OK to declare Marshall's position vacant. Bypassing the rules would be true if the IAOC had gone ahead unilaterally and asked the NomCom to fill the reminder of Marshall's term. The community consensus will determine the answer to the query. We think the current procedures were not meant for this case and are not clear on the situation when to declare a position vacant. BCP101 says: Any appointed IAOC member, including any appointed by the IAB, IESG, or ISOC Board of Trustees, may be recalled using the recall procedure defined in RFC 3777. The use of may usually means do this unless there is good reason to do otherwise. I think that is the case in this situation. The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc. Lastly, and I think most important, the IAOC proposed this approach because we think it would cause the least amount of embarrassment to Marshall. Marshall has been active in the IETF for many years and has made many important contributions. We proposed this course of action in respect to Marshall. We think it's better to not subject him to the formal RFC3777 recall process. Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally recalled. The result of a 3777 process is theoretically not subject to appeal. which has a certainly finality on completion that I don't think this proposal has. I don't think the proposal is bad, but I don't think it is a generically appropriate approach. Bob
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
At 16:25 23-10-2012, Bob Hinden wrote: The IAOC has operational responsibilities. Having one voting member not attending many meetings makes it harder obtaining a consensus. Without a consensus the IAOC can not approve contracts, RFPs, etc. According to the IAOC procedures: 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. formal RFC3777 recall process. Having his position declared vacant is milder than having him be formally recalled. Having a recall committee decide about the matter instead of the IETF Community discussion is milder as the details would not be subject to public scrutiny. The following (edited) question [1] is relevant: If the person showed up at the IETF in Atlanta, explaining that he had been absent for personal reasons now resolved, what would be the course of action? There are a few bugs in RFC 3777. It might be better not to discuss about that now. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75413.html
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
First in regards to Bob's post a bit ago, I personally am not asserting that the IAOC has broken any rules. I was sincere in my applause for their requesting feedback on this question; in spite of the fact that I disagree with their premise. On 10/23/2012 2:32 PM, John Leslie wrote: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: You asked for feedback, you have now received a non-trivial number of responses saying that arbitrarily declaring the position vacant is not an appropriate action. You have also received volunteers for the recall process. Rather than spending more time on trying to justify declaring the position vacant, why not get started on that recall? I strongly urge folks who think as Doug does to _read_ RFC 3777. I watched the castle being built, I've no desire to live in it. :) I did do a quick review of it just now, and at the risk of repeating myself I think anyone who is interested in revamping it would be putting their efforts to excellent use. Note that the recall process can only start with 20 members of the IETF community, who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee petitioning to the Internet Society President. If that happens, the recall process will start; if not, it won't. How very tautological of you. :) [snip] Myself, I don't expect to petition or volunteer to serve on a recall committee. The recall process isn't intended to be practical, IMHO, and seems intended only to prod the subject of recall to resign. In other organizations, I have lived through longish periods of uncertainty about the exact status of an individual, and I no longer find it scary. I tend to agree, which is one of the reasons I think the procedure should be followed as written. Doug
Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
The IAOC is requesting feedback from the community whether it is reasonable to declare Marshall's IAOC position vacant. Yes. Barry
