Re: [xtm-wg] MOTION: Charter revision

[Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Jack Park wrote:
> 
> It's interesting. Eric and I are the only conversants on this particular
> thread.  I have decided that, should it be needed, I second the motion.
> Also, I vote Yes for the motion.  I do so with the following justification.
> It won't take much to vote this motion down, and I was not privy to the
> commotion that provoked the motion, so it makes sense for me not to
> participate in voting it down.

Jack,

I've been in transit today for about fifteen hours, so I'm not going
to spend too much time thinking before I crash, but I thought I'd 
answer -- basically, if several Participating Members do not attend
a meeting, there's no way to make decisions that require "near 
consensus." This relaxation back to 2/3rds is to allow us to make
several changes to the charter in order to move forward. We're in a
catch-22 that only charter changes will solve, yet we cannot currently
make them. I think it was fairly unanimous amongst the attendees that
this motion is a Necessary and Good Thing. As Steve Pepper says, we'll
certainly find out when it comes time for voting.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                            <mailto:altheim&#x40;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com