Re: re voting

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

[btusdin@mulberrytech.com:]

| I suggest that we require some substantial % of the committee
| agree to the time period, what ever it is, and then let them set
| it.  If they're doing something they feel under time pressure on
| and they are willing to live with the results, let them set a 12
| hour limit.  If they're working at about the pace this committee
| is, they'll probably agree on something closer to 5 days.  If
| they're all graduates of the ISO school of decision-making they
| may choose 3 months.

Nnnng... I think that 12 hours is going too far; this would
essentially allow a strong majority of the committee with good
email connections to simply disenfranchise the rest.

[eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com:]

| 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"?

I don't think that anything is wrong with this, but Terry and I
are agreeing (I think) that there is a minimum below which we are
not comfortable letting the time go; I think that he and I are
disagreeing only on what that minimum should be.

Given the need to decide some things so that I can release the
first draft language of the bylaws as promised this weekend, I'd
like to just let this parameter remain undefined (and suitably
noted as such) until we can talk it through in Paris.  Does anyone
have a problem with that?

Jon