[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
My email has been down for a couple of days, and in reviewing this thread, I found this alternative reflects my view on the issue. Thanks for all the skull sweat, Rex Brooks At 12:29 PM -0500 2/21/03, Steve Anderson wrote: >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 >> >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > >> -- Rex Brooks President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design, Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc. Vice Chair, Secretary, Webmaster, OASIS HumanMarkup Technical Committee Webmaster, OASIS Web Services for Interactive Applications Technical Committee
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC