Subject: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 07:28:27 +0200

I want to call out the discussion that we had in the interim meeting, 
key result of which is that the group felt strongly that the RSAB may 
not proceed to consider document approvals if there is a vacancy.  I 
believe this also covers our discussion about quorum, but if others 
disagree, either with the result of the group's consideration about 
vacancy or my interpretation about quorum, please raise that concern 
now.  This issue will close on the 12th of October.

Eliot

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 15:11:44 +0900

> now.  This issue will close on the 12th of October.

I agree with the sentiment, but I think it has already been mentioned 
that creating a vacancy might allow a single stream to block progress 
effectively infinitely.

Say there's a document under discussion, and one stream really doesn't 
like it. If they oppose, the document is still approved under the rules, 
but if they retire and leave a vacancy, no decisions are possible anymore.

This is mainly theoretical (or so I hope), but doesn't seem to be 
excluded. Or did I get something wrong?

Regards,   Martin.