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

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

On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 07:13, Luc Clement wrote:
> Karl and chairs,
> 
> Unless I've missed something, we don't seem to have come to a consensus.

Since this is not a decision-making body, whether we have consensus or
not is, I think, irrelevant. What is important is that we have a
common understanding, and that, I'm afraid, we do not have, as witness
some of the messages sent lately. 

As chair of the TAB and of the TAB's SC that deals with Process, I will
ultimately have to deal with this, whether it comes to the TAB through a
request from the Board or through a self-initiated TAB action. 

What I would like to know is what people consider the best course of
action in order to reach a common understanding that during
email votes the concept of quorum is of no significance because 
everybody is considered present, and therefore whichever gets majority
wins (with only YAY or NAY being significant, and that abstentions are
not negative votes).

I'd very much appreciate if you, the chairs of OASIS TCs, could send me
a response to the following possible alternatives:

a) leave things as are
b) remove the sentence "For the purposes of mail vote counting, quorum 
   is constituted by the whole TC membership." (but remember that this
   returns us to a situation fraught with misunderstandings resolvable
   *only* through a comprehensive reading of Roberts)
c) amend the above sentence to read "For the purposes of email voting, 
   quorum is constituted by the whole TC membership and is always true."
d) replace the sentence in (b) above to xxx (please provide succint and
   clear alternative)
e) other

Please note that the above is not a vote ;-) Feel free to send me 
your responses directly if you so prefer.



> I would very much appreciate for Karl and the OASIS board to clarify the
> issues that have surfaced on the topic of email votes and what
> constitutes a quorum.
> 
> Luc Clement
> UDDI Spec TC Co-chair
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:eduardo.gutentag@sun.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 20:46
> To: Jeff Kenton
> Cc: Jon Bosak; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 06:02, Jeff Kenton wrote:
> > We are going around in circles on this.
> > 
> > Robert's Rules of Order is clear about face to face (or 
> > teleconference) meetings -- quorums, majority votes and abstentions.  
> > It is unclear about email votes on the issue of quorums.
> 
> Right, that's why there is a special section on it in the TC Process
> document, "(n) Conduct of TC business by mail"
> 
> > There are two choices:
> 
> I disagree, there is no choice at all because the process is already
> spelled out in http://oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#mail
> 
> > 
> > Either
> >   * everybody is present at an email vote, so there's always a quorum 
> > and a majority of votes cast wins
> That's what the TC process document says, in accordance w/Roberts
> 
> >   * or, total votes cast plus explicit abstentions determine whether 
> > you have a quorum
> 
> No, that would contradict the TC process document.
> > 
> > Time to choose what works best for us, and put the clarification into 
> > our rules.
> 
> They are already there. 
> 
> > Or, at worst, let each committee choose for itself and clarify its own
> 
> > bylaws.
> Sorry, total disagreement on this from me and, I suspect, many others.
> 
> > Thankfully, my committee gets quorums for meetings.
-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair