RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/03/2009 
02:32:59 PM:

> RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
> 
> I don't understand how we actually deliberate on and vote on a motion 
that
> is made on the list.  I don't think I have ever encountered this case in
> practice.
> 

It is a motion to conduct an electronic ballot.  Per our standing rule 
such a motion can be made and seconded on the list.  We've had the 
standing rule for around a month now.  I thought we actually did one this 
way before, for the Part III public review.  But you could be right, that 
this is the first case in practice we've used the standing rule.


> So, as a point of procedure, I request that an e-Vote be made with the
> motion with any modifications accepted by the mover (Michael) and a 
seconder
> (Rob Weir?).
> 

I think that motion is essentially already on the table.  So I'll take 
your statement as reaffirming it.

> Also, isn't there some sort of majority and roll-call vote required to 
go to
> public review (and even cd)?  I assume that an e-ballot would provide 
for
> that.  Not sure how we would do so on the list.
> 

Exactly.  All we're talking about is issuing a ballot for a CD and PWD. 
The approval of the CD and PWD will be via electronic ballot, and that 
electronic ballot automatically takes care of counting votes and applying 
the Full Majority criteria.

> I request that the motion be subdivided so that the acceptance as 
committee
> draft is resolved before acceptance for public review.
> 

Does anyone second, Dennis's motion?


> I request that the public review be for 90 days for reasons that I have
> already given concerning year-end holidays and the significance and
> extensiveness of the material involved in this review.
> 

Does anyone second, Dennis's motion?

If we don't get to a quick consensus on the list as to the parameters of 
this ballot, that we should be able to quickly resolve this via a series 
of meeting votes on Monday.

>  - Dennis
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00033.html
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:59
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM; office@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
> 
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/03/2009 
> 12:12:15 PM:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00032.html
> > 
> > Some Parliamentary Matters:
> > 
> > 1. I assume that the agreed motion is to be offered on the agenda of 
the
> > 2009-12-07 Coordination Call.  Is that correct?  Or are you proposing 
to
> > initiate an electronic ballot?
> > 
> 
> Michael made a motion on the list.  I recommended a change and said I 
> would support the motion as amended, and Michael agreed to the change. 
If 
> the motion bears a resemblance to a motion made in a previous meeting, 
> that is immaterial.   A meeting motion would is approved or not in a 
> meeting, and a motion made on the list is approved or not on the list. I 

> don't think they necessarily carry over. 
> 
> > 2. Is this one motion or three, each contingent on the passage of the
> > preceding one(s)?
> > 
> 
> Michael made as single motion.  So, as given it is all-or-nothing. 
> However, it is valid to ask the motion to be divided into separate 
> questions, and if there is consensus to do so that is what we would do. 
> But I don't think you would want three separate questions, since the 
> format and external stakeholders questions are required for the public 
> review ballot and should not be split out.  So at most you could have a 
CD 
> ballot, and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD ballot passing.
> 
> [ ... ]
>