Re: Just so I'm clear

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Thu, 25 October 2012 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1303521F87E1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RqC+3IetHOL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:41:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4B221F87BD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 18376 invoked by uid 399); 25 Oct 2012 18:40:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@12.207.105.210) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 25 Oct 2012 18:40:46 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 12.207.105.210
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <508987B9.2040207@dougbarton.us>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:40:57 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Just so I'm clear
References: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5086EF82.9060900@dougbarton.us> <20121023200713.GC1861@nsn.com> <5086FBCE.2070503@dougbarton.us> <20121023213251.GF27557@verdi> <50873AB4.1000905@dougbarton.us> <20121024034736.GC52558@crankycanuck.ca> <50876D39.20502@dougbarton.us> <508773E7.10203@cisco.com> <50877633.1000402@dougbarton.us> <EA9BEA2E-EE96-4E80-B719-652BBD620A79@lilacglade.org> <508842C2.4020203@dougbarton.us> <5088EE5A.4090103@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5088EE5A.4090103@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:41:04 -0000

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.

> 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. Given that the only choices are
"vacant, or recall;" and given that the vacant state of the seat isn't
100% clear, at this time recall is the only option.

Doug