Subject: Re: I* Member Removal Process

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:09:30 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>

    > And, the community does not have rough consensus for simply declaring
    > his seat vacant under the current set of BCPs. 

Why not, I cannot fathom, because as SM has pointed out (hat tip), RFC 4333,
"IAOC Member Selection Guidelines and Process", has text which is exactly on
point:

    >> "if the appointed member is unable to serve the full two-year term,
    >> the selecting body may, at its discretion, immediately select a
    >> replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim
    >> process defined in Section 3.5.1."

The document doesn't define in detail what constitutes "unable to serve", but
it clearly means via some form of incapacitation (death, severe illness,
etc). Obviously, the intent of leaving un-stated exactly what constituted
"unable to serve the full two-year term" was that it would be determined by
common sense, applying the "unable to serve" test to the facts at hand.

He's clearly "unable to serve". I find it hard to see how someone who will
not respond to _any_ form of communication, over a period of months, is
'[]able to serve'.

If the _only_ way to determine that someone is "unable to serve the full
two-year term" is via the recall process, why didn't the document say that?
There is just the bald statement that 'if someone is "unable to serve", a
replacment can be selected using the same process that selected them'.

And he's definitely "unable to serve". But I guess the IETF would rather
deploy the most onerous, heavy-weight bureacratic process it can find (one
intended for entirely different circumstances), as opposed to using the
capability _already in its process documents exactly for cases like this_.

	Noel

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:21:06 -0700

> The document doesn't define in detail what constitutes "unable to serve", but

Rhat is the specific and entire point.  We have a substantial set of 
formal details, but we don't have that one.

> common sense, applying the "unable to serve" test to the facts at hand.

Your certitude about the intent of the framers and ratifiers of these 
formal documents is appealing, but unfortunately unfounded, since there 
is no documentation about that intent.

Worse, it's not clear to me that even knowing their/our intent would 
suffice, in terms of being subject to external review for due process.

> He's clearly "unable to serve".

So you believe.  I might also.  He might or might not.

> I find it hard to see how someone who will

And more's the pity that our documents didn't cover such constructive 
resignation by voluntary vacancy.

> replacment can be selected using the same process that selected them'.

The problem is that the document doesn't specify anything about the 
conditions that define being unable to serve.  The nature of this sort 
of formal document requires such specificity.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Turchanyi Geza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:22:12 +0100

Noel,

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]>wrote:

....

> capability _already in its process documents exactly for cases like this_.

Marshall was clearly unable to serve in the past three months. The question
is: Would it be possible for him to return within a couple of weeks, or not.

I wish he could. However, this is unclear for me and I has no information
at all.

Best,

Géza