RE: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

It wasn't said explicitly because it was assumed. The intention  started of
as allowing electronic voting in addition to normal voting,  not to replace
normal votes. During the discussion it got refined to only allowing kavi
ballots, but not at the expense of normal  voting!

Martin.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:11 AM
> To: Pete Wenzel
> Cc: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference
> 
> 
> Pete, I think that there was an implied notion of allowing 
> votes in meetings, but unless I missed it (entirely possible 
> in that particular
> discussion) it wasn't said explicitly. If someone has a more 
> accurate recollection then let me know.
> 
> One solution would be to replace "route" with "electronic 
> route" in the minutes, to make explicit what was implicit.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----
> Mark Little,
> Chief Architect, Transactions,
> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> 
www.arjuna.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Wenzel" <pete@seebeyond.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference


> > ...
> <1> Jeff (Mischinsky) objected to email ballots and proposals of 
> motions
> > by email. Martin agreed.
> >
> <2> Eric then asked for clarification of exactly what the new motion
> > should be, to which Jeff responded that Kavi should be the only 
> > route for voting within the TC.
> >
> > Pete (Wenzel?) seconded the motion.
> >
> > Eric asked if there was any further discussion or objections. 
> > Hearing none, the motion was carried.
>
> Seems like something is slightly amiss here, unless my memory is 
> failing.  I agree with <1> above, but think <2> may not be correct.
>
> If the restated motion is correct as recorded, we would be unable to 
> vote during meetings, and every little decision would be delayed for a 
> week.  My opinion is that at the chairs' discretion, a voice vote 
> during a meeting may be deemed appropriate for some matters, while the 
> Kavi route could be chosen for decisions that require further thought 
> or additional participation.  But definitely the intent was to 
> disallow email voting.
>
> --Pete
> Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
> Senior Architect, SeeBeyond
> Standards & Product Strategy
> +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
>