[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race
The way this is handled in Roberts Rules is that a motion to reconsider must be made by someone who was on the prevailing side the last time the motion was voted on. This is a design for prevention of endless reiteration. (It is also one basis for a well-known congressional practice of going with the winning side once it is clear which way the wind is blowing.) It is a very simple procedure. Something that might be useful to you. It doesn't exactly fit what you are doing -- responding to comments received in public review -- but it might serve if you have a concern about re-opening old debates. I don't know what a "reapplicable rationale" is, so I have nothing further to offer. I don't want to discuss TC policy either. -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 06:20 To: rkthunga@humanmarkup.org; humanmarkup-comment@lists.oasis-open.org; humanmarkup@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race Hi Ranjeeth, I am copying the TC lists with this request with the proviso, or caveat, that it is intended for you alone, but was not appropriate as a private communication on so important an issue. So, the public and lurkers on the TC lists should not consider this an invitation for a discussion on TC policy. As far as a reapplicable rationale is concerned, I think you could state that as : [ ... ]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC