Re: re voting

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> [tallen@sonic.net:]
> 
> | | Say, here's a different approach; suppose we replace both
> | | paragraphs quoted above with this one:
> | |
> | |    A TC may adopt a standing rule authorizing its chair to word
> | |    resolutions, to put such resolutions to the members of the TC
> | |    by mail, and to conduct votes on such resolutions by mail.
> |
> | That's fine, but it misses the restriction to some particular
> | subject matter that was captured in the previous language.
> 
> Yes, that's right.  I'm suggesting that we simply allow a TC to
> decide *in general* whether it's going to authorize its chair to
> act this way.
> 
> Could the rest of you please join this discussion?
> 
> | | We've been interpreting "mail" in Robert's as including email; I
> | | think that we should continue to do so.
> |
> | Then we have a confusion between e-mail and mail.  Can I respond
> | to e-mail in mail?
> 
> As long as it arrives within the time limits we specify, why not?
> We can't prevent people from doing dumb things.
> 
> | | | The voting period should not be shorter than 5 days, or whatever
> | | | span is chosen.
> | |
> | | If 2/3 of the members think that the TC can operate within a
> | | shorter voting cycle, why not allow them to adopt a standing rule
> | | that lets it do so?  (Maybe specifying a minimum of, say, two
> | | business days below which they can never go.)
> |
> | Because it isn't fair.
> 
> So you're saying that five days *is* the lower limit beyond which
> they shouldn't be allowed to go....  I'm not sure that I agree,
> but I see your point.  Personally, I would hate to be held to a
> 48-hour turnaround; I guess the question is whether a given TC
> should be allowed by a 2/3 vote to move faster than people like me
> could handle easily.

I'm not sure I understand what the whole issue is -- why not let the
TC determine (perhaps at chartering time, perhaps later) what the
ideal time is? A TC of which Jon Bosak is a member will surely
adopt a 10 day rule, a TC of which Bill Smith is a member will have to
go for 30 days, while a TC of which Terry Allen is a member will comfortably
deal with 2 days. Why not just say "The voting period should be adopted
by the TC as part of the standing rules"?

> 
> Do others have an opinion on this?  And could I get that opinion
> in less than five days?  :-)
> 
> Jon

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         fax:    (650) 786-5727