Re: [pki-tc] Proposed rule allowing email voting

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Steve,
Nice work. I will support this proposed rule.
Phil

Steve Hanna wrote:

>At our April 30 meeting, I intend to propose the following
>standing rule:
>
>  resolved, that the chair of the PKI TC be authorized to
>  draft resolutions pertaining to routine business directly
>  related to the stated purpose of the TC and to conduct
>  votes on such resolutions by mail. Mail in this context
>  means electronic mail sent to the PKI TC's general list.
>
>  In order to approve a resolution by mail, an affirmative
>  vote by a majority of the Voting Members of the TC will
>  be required. Elections and resolutions that would normally
>  require more than a simple majority cannot be voted on by mail.
>
>Why is this a good idea? It will allow us to vote on
>routine matters without having to organize a conference
>call. I would definitely expect the chair to be conservative,
>only using this technique for matters that are truly routine,
>where no discussion is likely to be needed.
>
>In any case, passage of such a vote will require a majority
>of the majority of the TC's Voting Members (considerably more
>than would be required on at a meeting, where a majority of a
>quorum would suffice). So only routine matters with broad
>support could pass using this technique. It's just a way for
>us to act more quickly and avoid the need to meet to pass
>routine motions.
>
>A simple majority of the Voting Members on the concall will
>be required to approve this rule and a simple majority of
>the Voting Members at any subsequent meeting could amend or
>rescind it. This motion is based on language in the OASIS
>TC Process document. I understand that many OASIS TCs have
>a similar rule.
>
>I figured that I should make this motion available now so
>that people will have plenty of time to consider it and raise
>any concerns or questions about it before our meeting.
>
>I don't have a strong opinion that this rule is essential
>to the success of our TC. But I think it might be useful.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Steve
>
>  
>