punctuation - Comma issue: noun of direct address in the middle of the sentence after conjunction

Another nitpicky comma question that I hope you will help me to resolve.

How does one need to punctuate the noun of direct address (or vocative) in the middle of the sentence that goes directly after coordinating conjunction connecting two independent clauses in a compound sentence? Are the bracketed commas required in the examples below?

Examples:

I was going to accept your resignation later, but[,] John, have you considered all the options first?

I will be flying with the executive committee to London, and[,] John, will you be coming with us?

Ignore the actual examples. I just want to understand the punctuation.

My research and some other threads on this site seem to suggest that eliding the middle 'after-conjunction' comma is allowed as the style decision in cases where the conjunction used to connect two independent clauses is followed by an introductory or parenthetical phrase (some references at the bottom). But would that be allowed for nouns of direct address as well, and if yes, could we then conclude that it's an acceptable style to drop the first bracketing comma after conjunction irrespective of the type of the bracketed element (introductory, parenthetical, aside, noun of direct address, etc.)?

Would this style be allowed in formal, technical documents?

References from a few sources below.

Dr Charles Darling:

When a parenthetical element — an interjection, adverbial modifier, or even an adverbial clause — follows a coordinating conjunction used to connect two independent clauses, we do not put a comma in front of the parenthetical element.

Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Style:

An introductory word, phrase, or clause following a coordinating conjunction in a compound sentence leaves the writer with several options:

Option 1: The curves in figure 2 are less familiar with geometrical objects that those in figure 1, but, other than the top curve, they have a reasonable shape.

Option 2: …in figure 1, but other than the top curve, they have…

The first option includes all the punctuation that the sentence structure suggests. However, at least one comma could be eliminated (second option) without sacrificing clarity.

Morson's English Guide for Court Reporters:

When a parenthetical or unnecessary expression precedes the second clause in a compound sentence, keep the comma before the conjunction and use one comma after the parenthetical expression.

EXAMPLES

l. I liked him very much, but to tell you the truth, he was a liar.

m. He was standing on my left, and if I remember correctly, he wore a gray overcoat.

n. I wondered how I missed seeing her, and as a matter of fact, I still do not believe she passed my desk.

Answer

The three reference guidelines that you quote in your question evidently apply to any "parenthetical element," "introductory word, phrase, or clause," or "parenthetical or unnecessary expression" that immediately follows a coordinating conjunction—and the direct-address word "John" in your example is simply one such element, word, or expression.

That being the case, it seems to me that all three sources you cite would endorse omitting a comma immediately after the conjunction, yielding these sentences:

I was going to accept your resignation later, but John, have you considered all the options first?

I will be flying with the executive committee to London, and John, will you be coming with us?

The only asterisk attached to this endorsement is that Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Style also approves of the alternative punctuation with a comma after the coordinating conjunction:

I was going to accept your resignation later, but, John, have you considered all the options first?

I will be flying with the executive committee to London, and, John, will you be coming with us?

So if you're following Dr. Darling or Morson, you should omit the comma after and or but; and if you're following Science & Technical Writing, you can choose either to omit the comma or to include it. I should note, however, that these three sources do not speak for more than themselves: there is no universally recognized rule of punctuation on this point.

Having said all that, I must reiterate Edwin Ashworth's suggestion that either preceding the conjunction with a semicolon or breaking the compound sentence into two sentences would do more to clarify the sense of the sentence on first reading than simply adopting one or the other approach to the comma question. Alternatively, in the first example, shifting "John" to a position immediately before the conjunction instead of immediately after it would enable you to punctuate the interior of the compound sentence entirely with commas, without fogging up the construction:

I was going to accept your resignation later, John, but have you considered all the options first?

In the second example, merely relocating "John" is less satisfactory because the choice of and as the coordinating conjunction becomes less appealing when "John" moves elsewhere. In that case, I would consider introducing an em-dash to indicate a redirection of thought midway through the compound sentence:

I will be flying with the executive committee to London—and will you be coming with us, John?