IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Just so I'm clear

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Sun, 28 October 2012 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.com>
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 06B7621F8686 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292]
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 GdkepFAR6IQG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [209.133.53.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A588521F8685 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xpasc.com (unknown [68.164.244.188]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036923FC16 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:28:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9S4SYBu013563 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:28:34 -0700
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:28:34 -0700
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Just so I'm clear
In-Reply-To: <508A39A0.3090602@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1210272123530.13487@egate.xpasc.com>
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> <508987B9.2040207@dougbarton.us> <508A39A0.3090602@gmail.com>
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-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:28:36 -0000

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Actually I haven't seen that. I've seen people assert that our process
> doesn't document the case of a non-responsive absentee member, but I
> haven't seen anyone deny that we have an empty seat.

I don't believe the seat is vacant or empty. Without some form of
rule or process documented, it isn't vacant. For unknown reasons
(we've had two different 3rd party reports, neither of which makes
sense given the individual's prior commitment to the IETF community,
we have a clear case of failure to fulfill the obligations assumed when
the position was accepted.

That isn't a defacto vacancy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email