RE: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I'm following a variation of what I see in other public comment 
phases. The primary consideration is to get more feedback and 
stimulate discussion about specific issues. I chose this approach 
based on the notion that we need to develop an appropriate mechanism 
or procedure for what will be a fairly standard and repeating 
situation, with at least four more specifications in the works. We do 
follow Robert's Rules as a guide, as we need it. That's what a 
reapplicable rationale meant for me in a procedural sense. What Len 
came up with is a more focused criterion.

Ciao,
Rex


At 10:48 AM -0800 12/3/02, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>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 :
>
>[ ... ]
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com