[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approvedthe version 2 draft?
MessageWhat I see is that the Editor made changes to the current CS, accepting and rejecting ballot comments, then the Chair asked for a vote on the new document replacing the current CS. 5 members voted YES, 2 members voted NO, and 5 members did not vote.One can hardly conclude that this document has approval of 71% of the members.Also, I don't understand how this document can be designated as a "Version 2 draft", since the TC has never discussed about starting a new version. Or is discussion in this TC unnecessary and consensus waived?Alessandro-----Original Message-----A "majority vote" is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks.
From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 07:03
To: [OASIS XCBF]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approved the version 2 draft?
While a majority favored making the updated document a CS, a
super majority was required to replace the current CS.
The current draft is the latest version of the XCBF document, and
reflects the most recent progress of the editor.
It is a working document and still subject to change, but a majority
has voted in support of this draft.
Alessandro Triglia wrote:
Phil, The question of the failed ballot was: "Do you accept this document to replace our current CS?" 58% of the members of the TC voted, and 71% of them voted YES. Therefore the ballot failed. Now you are saying that this document has "approval of 71% of the members". I don't quite understand. Can you please clarify the status of this "version 2 draft", and who has approved it? Alessandro-----Original Message----- From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 23:10 To: [OASIS XCBF] Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS 1.0 The second automated TC ballot that closed on April 10, and which was approved by 71% of the XCBF TC, has failed to achieve the required super majority needed to approve this document as the new XCBF CS. There were two votes to disapprove this document. These were made by OSS Nokalva members Paul Thorpe and Alessandro Triglia. Their comments are available for review in the member area of the web site. I asked that the ballot be reviewed by OASIS administration. I have been informed that the ballot failed to achieve the required 2/3rds positive vote, and no more than 1/4th negative votes needed to approve a new CS. So in this case, the minority view prevails. I have changed the designation of the April 3 revised document referenced in this ballot. It is now the XCBF version 2 draft document. This document has approval of 71% of the members. I have restored to this folder the last document approved by the XCBF TC as a CS. This document is dated March 25 and designated as the XCBF CS 1.0. Phil