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

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/ Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com> was heard to say:
| In mail votes the concept of a quorum is meaningless, because in
| mail everyone is always present.

Exactly.

I have no sympathy for people who are too busy to read their email or
too busy to reply to ballots. As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly
the same as showing up for the meeting and not paying any attention.
You snooze, you lose. (Been there, done that. Hard cheese to me.)

I understand that there may be folks whom the chair knows are on
vacation or are taking a leave of absence and therefore could not
reply to a ballot (or attend a meeting if there was one). But if a
quorum of members remain active, I think it's perfectly reasonable to
call a vote and accept that those members will effectively abstain.

If more than half the members of a committee are known to be
unavailable, the chair has no business calling a vote, I guess. But do
we really have to legislate for that?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | There exist some evils so terrible and some
XML Standards Architect | misfortunes so horrible that we dare not
Web Tech. and Standards | think of them, whilst their very aspect makes
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | us shudder; but if they happen to fall on us,
                        | we find ourselves stronger than we imagined;
                        | we grapple with our ill luck, and behave
                        | better than we expected we should.--La Bruy�ère
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQE+VOHROyltUcwYWjsRAuMnAKCqpUdjwAWC6XSqwhBrwKf3aC57owCfZ13F
aP4Ud+z5PDDkTmNvkVZQnjM=
=2r0I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----