[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion
I would like to second Dennis' motion to make the public review 90 days. Given the holidays I think that with a 60 day review period, people are unlikely to set aside time to review it. With 90 days, I expect that we are more likely to get meaningful feedback and it be more efficient in getting to the end. -Eric -----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 11:33 AM To: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org; robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion I don't understand how we actually deliberate on and vote on a motion that is made on the list. I don't think I have ever encountered this case in practice. So, as a point of procedure, I request that an e-Vote be made with the motion with any modifications accepted by the mover (Michael) and a seconder (Rob Weir?). Also, isn't there some sort of majority and roll-call vote required to go to public review (and even cd)? I assume that an e-ballot would provide for that. Not sure how we would do so on the list. I request that the motion be subdivided so that the acceptance as committee draft is resolved before acceptance for public review. I request that the public review be for 90 days for reasons that I have already given concerning year-end holidays and the significance and extensiveness of the material involved in this review. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00033.html Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 10:59 To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org Cc: Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM; office@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [office] ODF 1.2 Part 1 Public Review Ballot Motion "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 12/03/2009 12:12:15 PM: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200912/msg00032.html > > Some Parliamentary Matters: > > 1. I assume that the agreed motion is to be offered on the agenda of the > 2009-12-07 Coordination Call. Is that correct? Or are you proposing to > initiate an electronic ballot? > Michael made a motion on the list. I recommended a change and said I would support the motion as amended, and Michael agreed to the change. If the motion bears a resemblance to a motion made in a previous meeting, that is immaterial. A meeting motion would is approved or not in a meeting, and a motion made on the list is approved or not on the list. I don't think they necessarily carry over. > 2. Is this one motion or three, each contingent on the passage of the > preceding one(s)? > Michael made as single motion. So, as given it is all-or-nothing. However, it is valid to ask the motion to be divided into separate questions, and if there is consensus to do so that is what we would do. But I don't think you would want three separate questions, since the format and external stakeholders questions are required for the public review ballot and should not be split out. So at most you could have a CD ballot, and a PRD ballot contingent on the CD ballot passing. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]