[chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

What Lauren says is true to an extent, but many members from large 
corporations abstain on principle because they do not want to explain 
support or opposition on some issues to their own constituencies or 
they don't know what the consensus of their company is on some issues 
or there simply is no consensus.

This argues for balloting online, and by email and recording failure 
to vote by an announced date as abstain.

Ciao,
Rex

At 9:47 AM -0800 2/19/03, Lauren Wood wrote:
>[I cut down the CC list assuming everyone is on the chairs mailing
>list - L]
>
>On 18 Feb 2003 at 22:44, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>>
>>  That may be true in theory, but in the practice, when in a 20 person TC
>>  an email vote elicits 2 yes votes and 1 no vote and the rest either
>>  send "I abstain" messages or none at all, people are quite reluctant
>>  to consider the matter settled in favor of the motion. Most would say,
>>  and have said, that the vote doesn't and shouldn't count.
>
>If everyone else abstains or can't be bothered voting, doesn't that
>mean they don't care about the result of that vote? So why shouldn't
>it count? I could see saying that a certain percentage of the TC must
>vote in one of the three ways, which would imply if you don't care
>what the result is you must explicitly say you don't care by
>abstaining. How is this different to the common "if no objections,
>it's carried"?
>
>Lauren
>
>--
>
>Lauren Wood, Chair, Entity Resolution TC
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com