Re: re voting

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

[tallen@sonic.net:]

| | Say, here's a different approach; suppose we replace both
| | paragraphs quoted above with this one:
| | 
| |    A TC may adopt a standing rule authorizing its chair to word
| |    resolutions, to put such resolutions to the members of the TC
| |    by mail, and to conduct votes on such resolutions by mail.
| 
| That's fine, but it misses the restriction to some particular
| subject matter that was captured in the previous language.

Yes, that's right.  I'm suggesting that we simply allow a TC to
decide *in general* whether it's going to authorize its chair to
act this way.

Could the rest of you please join this discussion?

| | We've been interpreting "mail" in Robert's as including email; I
| | think that we should continue to do so.
| 
| Then we have a confusion between e-mail and mail.  Can I respond
| to e-mail in mail?  

As long as it arrives within the time limits we specify, why not?
We can't prevent people from doing dumb things.

| | | The voting period should not be shorter than 5 days, or whatever
| | | span is chosen.
| | 
| | If 2/3 of the members think that the TC can operate within a
| | shorter voting cycle, why not allow them to adopt a standing rule
| | that lets it do so?  (Maybe specifying a minimum of, say, two
| | business days below which they can never go.)
| 
| Because it isn't fair.

So you're saying that five days *is* the lower limit beyond which
they shouldn't be allowed to go....  I'm not sure that I agree,
but I see your point.  Personally, I would hate to be held to a
48-hour turnaround; I guess the question is whether a given TC
should be allowed by a 2/3 vote to move faster than people like me
could handle easily.

Do others have an opinion on this?  And could I get that opinion
in less than five days?  :-)

Jon