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

[Steve Anderson <sanderson@opennetwork.com>]

This, based on my experience, a desired effect of an email vote -- ensuring that the vote carries the consent of the (majority of) the entire TC body.
--
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Kenton [mailto:jkenton@datapower.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Jeff Kenton
Cc: Hal Lockhart; Steve Anderson; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing


Jeff Kenton wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steve Anderson [mailto:sanderson@opennetwork.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:30 PM
>>> To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
>>>
> 
>    ...
> 
>>>  If we take this path, the replacement text would be:
>>>
>>>    "Email votes require majority of TC membership in order to pass."
>>>
> 
> Note that a literal reading of this phrase makes deliberate abstentions 
> equivalent to "NO" votes.
> 

In theory, this could also mean that you require twice as many "YES" votes to pass something by email as you would in a meeting with a minimal quorum.

This isn't necessarily an objection -- but it's good to know what you're saying.


-- 
--------------------------
Jeff Kenton
DataPower Technology, Inc.