Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

David Morris <> Wed, 24 October 2012 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B258421F8941 for <>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.953
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IX0hPzArGd1A for <>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5003521F893F for <>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C233FBAE for <>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:46:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9ODkYkQ004593 for <>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:46:34 -0700
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:46:34 -0700
From: David Morris <>
Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Milter-Version: master.1+13-gbab1945
X-AV-Type: clean
X-AV-Accuracy: exact
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:46:35 -0000

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