Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approvedthe version 2 draft?

[John Larmouth <j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk>]

Phil,

This is getting tedious.  Please stop counting votes and formalities.

What we need is sensible discussion leading to a consensus on the 
contents of the document.

There is no reason why you can't achieve 0% NO votes if you will just 
have some technical discussion rather than all this political stuff.

John L


Phillip H. Griffin wrote:
> A "majority vote" is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks.
> 
> While a majority favored making the updated document a CS, a
> super majority was required to replace the current CS.
> 
> The current draft is the latest version of the XCBF document, and
> reflects the most recent progress of the editor.
> 
> It is a working document and still subject to change, but a majority
> has voted in support of this draft.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> 
>>Phil,
>>
>>The question of the failed ballot was:
>>
>>"Do you accept this document to replace our current CS?"
>>
>>58% of the members of the TC voted, and 71% of them voted YES.
>>Therefore the ballot failed.  Now you are saying that this document has
>>"approval of 71% of the members".  I don't quite understand.  
>>
>>Can you please clarify the status of this "version 2 draft", and who has
>>approved it?
>>
>>Alessandro
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:phil.griffin@asn-1.com] 
>>>Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 23:10
>>>To: [OASIS XCBF]
>>>Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS 1.0
>>>
>>>
>>>The second automated TC ballot that closed on April 10, and 
>>>which was approved by 71% of the XCBF TC, has failed to 
>>>achieve the required super majority needed to approve this 
>>>document as the new XCBF CS.
>>>
>>>There were two votes to disapprove this document. These were 
>>>made by OSS Nokalva members Paul Thorpe and Alessandro 
>>>Triglia. Their comments are available for review in the member 
>>>area of the web site.
>>>
>>>I asked that the ballot be reviewed by OASIS administration. I 
>>>have been informed that the ballot failed to achieve the 
>>>required 2/3rds positive vote, and no more than 1/4th 
>>>negative votes needed to approve a new CS. So in this case, 
>>>the minority view prevails.
>>>
>>>I have changed the designation of the April 3 revised document 
>>>referenced in this ballot. It is now the XCBF version 2 draft 
>>>document. This document has approval of 71% of the members.
>>>
>>>I have restored to this folder the last document approved by the 
>>>XCBF TC as a CS. This document is dated March 25 and 
>>>designated as the XCBF CS 1.0. 
>>>
>>>Phil
>>> 
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> 


-- 
PLEASE NOTE - As an anti-SPAM measure, e-mails will shortly
not be accepted by my machine from an unknown sender unless
the subject contains the phrase "Hi John".

If you pass my e-mail address to others (which I am very happy
for you to do) please tell them to include this phrase in the
subject line of their first mailing to me.  Thanks.

    Prof John Larmouth
    Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
    (Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
    1 Blueberry Road
    Bowdon                               j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
    Cheshire WA14 3LS                    (put "Hi John" in subject)
    England			
    Tel: +44 161 928 1605		Fax: +44 161 928 8069