RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing

[Steve Anderson <sanderson@opennetwork.com>]

If we are content with our current policy (my understanding of which has changed significantly through this thread), then I'd opt for (d), and replace it with the following:

    "Note that for email votes, quorum is implicitly reached, allowing the result of vote
    to be binding.  Also note that the result of the vote is determined by simple majority,
    which is to say the majority of votes cast, excluding abstentions."

The thing that I think people (myself included) may be uncomfortable with is the use of "majority" for email votes, rather than "majority of membership".  I'd advocate changing our policy to require majority of membership for email votes.  In my experience, email votes are used for issues that warrant the entire membership's attention, consideration and opinion.  If we take this path, the replacement text would be:

    "Email votes require majority of TC membership in order to pass."

--
Steve Anderson
SSTC & WSSTC Secretary


-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:01 PM
To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing


On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 07:13, Luc Clement wrote:
> Karl and chairs,
> 
> Unless I've missed something, we don't seem to have come to a consensus.

Since this is not a decision-making body, whether we have consensus or
not is, I think, irrelevant. What is important is that we have a
common understanding, and that, I'm afraid, we do not have, as witness
some of the messages sent lately. 

As chair of the TAB and of the TAB's SC that deals with Process, I will
ultimately have to deal with this, whether it comes to the TAB through a
request from the Board or through a self-initiated TAB action. 

What I would like to know is what people consider the best course of
action in order to reach a common understanding that during
email votes the concept of quorum is of no significance because 
everybody is considered present, and therefore whichever gets majority
wins (with only YAY or NAY being significant, and that abstentions are
not negative votes).

I'd very much appreciate if you, the chairs of OASIS TCs, could send me
a response to the following possible alternatives:

a) leave things as are
b) remove the sentence "For the purposes of mail vote counting, quorum 
   is constituted by the whole TC membership." (but remember that this
   returns us to a situation fraught with misunderstandings resolvable
   *only* through a comprehensive reading of Roberts)
c) amend the above sentence to read "For the purposes of email voting, 
   quorum is constituted by the whole TC membership and is always true."
d) replace the sentence in (b) above to xxx (please provide succint and
   clear alternative)
e) other

Please note that the above is not a vote ;-) Feel free to send me 
your responses directly if you so prefer.



> I would very much appreciate for Karl and the OASIS board to clarify the
> issues that have surfaced on the topic of email votes and what
> constitutes a quorum.
> 
> Luc Clement
> UDDI Spec TC Co-chair
> 
>