Re: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing

[Tony Jewtushenko <Tony.Jewtushenko@oracle.com>]

Apologies for sending out 2 nearly identical replies earlier - my mail
client crashed while sending the first version,  so I composed and sent a
second one.

Roberts isn't clear on email voting,  and their rules on voting by mail are
archaic (2 envelopes,  etc),  and I agree with your interpretation of the
rules.

Our TC specified bylaws relating to email voting at our first TC meeting,
per the OASIS TC guidelines.

Regards,
Tony Jewtushenko,  Chair - XLIFF TC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>
To: "Tony Jewtushenko" <tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com>
Cc: <lauren@textuality.com>; <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing


> If a member is not present at a meeting, they do not get counted
> towards quarum.  There votes are "not Present" rather than "abstain".
>
> Why is it not the same for email votes.  If the member is on vacation
> for a month, and do not respond to the mail, they should be counted as
> not present for purposes of quorum.
>
> One quarum is verified, it realy does not matter whether "not present"
> is treated as abstain, as the effect is the same in the final majority
> calculations.
>
> To summarize, I do not believer that "Not responding" members really
> should not be counted for quarum puposes on an email vote.
>
> Please let me know if my interpretation is not correct.
>
> Tom Rutt
> Fujitsu
> WSRM chair
>
> Tony Jewtushenko wrote:
> > Am I mistaken - doesn't OASIS followed Roberts Rules of Order?
> >  Customising the rules for membership/quorum is one thing,  but to
> > customise fundemental rules on voting and achieving quorum is,  in my
> > opinion, no different than making it up as you go.
> >
> > Roberts Rules <http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror-08.htm#46> is clear
> > on the topic of voting:
> >
> >     "When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority
> >     of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption
> >     of any motion that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which
> >     require a two-thirds vote."
> >
> > Note that for our purposes,  an abstention should be equivalent to a
> > "blank".   Furthermore,  an abstention  is considered an appropriate
> > vote in its own right:
> >
> >     "While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the
> >     question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do
> >     so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect
> >     is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side."
> >
> > Therefore,  nullifying a vote where you have 2 yeahs,  one nay and a
> > couple dozen abstentions is inappropriate - the question should carry.
> > The Yeah's woudl win even when a 2/3 majority vote is  required,  since
> > blank votes are not counted.
> >
> >     "Two-thirds Vote. A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes
> >     cast, ignoring blanks which should never be counted. This must not
> >     be confused with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or
> >     two-thirds of the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. "
> >
> > With respect to the issue of membership and quorum - I think the answer
> > is to bite the bullet and terminate memberships of those who are
> > chronically absent.  The TC I lead recently had frequent problems
> > achieving quorum because of a couple of long term absentees,  wo we went
> > through a painful membership / attendence audit that resulted in
> > revoking TC memberhip of 3 members (out of a total of 19),  one of whom
> > was an original founding member.  We haven't had any problems achieving
> > a quorum since,  but I'll admit it was a painful process.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony Jewtushenko,  Chair - XLIFF TC
> >
> >
> > 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>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Tony Jewtushenko mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com
> > Sr. Tools Program Manager direct tel: +353.1.8039080
> > Product Management - Tools Technology Team
> > Oracle Corporation, Ireland
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>