[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: re voting
Jon Bosak wrote: > > [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. I'm not sure I understand what the whole issue is -- why not let the TC determine (perhaps at chartering time, perhaps later) what the ideal time is? A TC of which Jon Bosak is a member will surely adopt a 10 day rule, a TC of which Bill Smith is a member will have to go for 30 days, while a TC of which Terry Allen is a member will comfortably deal with 2 days. Why not just say "The voting period should be adopted by the TC as part of the standing rules"? > > Do others have an opinion on this? And could I get that opinion > in less than five days? :-) > > Jon -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM XML Technology Center | Phone: (650) 786-5498 Sun Microsystems Inc. | fax: (650) 786-5727
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC