[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for meeting 2000-09-06 09:00-12:00EDT
True enough Eduardo -- you caught me snoozing . .. I have hazy memories of percentages . . . the story is long and irrelevant . . . However, on the longer point of horror/interest you mentioned, that the rules are there to protect majority and need only be mentioned in the absence of consent (same implied by silence) -- I personally prefer a formal vote or at least "any opposed" calls . . . And full formal votes just feel more . . . official somehow, more standards-like ;-) Am I to infer otherwise that there is not a problem viz. Roberts with the resolution (assuming a re-word to simple majority)? jr #From: Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com> #Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for meeting 2000-09-06 09:00-12:00EDT #To: John Robert Gardner <John.Robert.Gardner@east.sun.com> #Cc: XSLT-Conformance@lists.oasis-open.org, gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com #MIME-version: 1.0 #X-Accept-Language: zh-TW, zh-CN, ja, en #List-Owner: <mailto:xslt-conformance-help@lists.oasis-open.org> #List-Post: <mailto:xslt-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org> #List-Subscribe: <mailto:xslt-conformance-request@lists.oasis-open.org?body=subscribe> #List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:xslt-conformance-request@lists.oasis-open.org?body=unsubscribe> #List-Archive: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xslt-conformance> #List-Help: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/doc/email-manage.html>, <mailto:xslt-conformance-request@lists.oasis-open.org?body=help> # #OASIS TCs conduct their business in accordance to Robert's Rules of Order. Regarding #votes, Article VIII spells out all kinds of issues related to majorities, two thirds, etc. # #For instance: #--------- #[VIII.46]... #When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order, except those #mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. # #[VIII.48] #48. Motions requiring more than a Majority Vote. Majority Vote. Any legitimate motion not included among those mentioned below as requiring more than a majority vote, requires for #its adoption only a majority; that is, more than half of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, at a legal meeting where a quorum is present, unless a larger vote for its adoption is #required by the rules of the assembly. #... #There has been established as a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly the principle that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion #that suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; or prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; or closes, or limits, or extends the limits of debate; #or limits the freedom of nomination or voting; or closes nominations or the polls; or deprives one of membership or office. #---------- # #It seems to me that this would indicate that a majority vote by those present at the time #a dispute is under consideration would be enough, as it does not qualify as requiring #a two-thirds vote. # #I have to confess that, much to my horror, I actually enjoyed reading Article VIII. I #found the following of particular interest: # #------ #General Consent or Unanimous Vote. By general, or unanimous, or silent, consent the assembly can do business with little regard for the rules of procedure, as they are made for the #protection of the minority, and when there is no minority to protect, there is little use for the restraint of the rules, except such as protect the rights of absent members, or #the right to a secret vote. In the former case the consent of the absentees cannot be given, and in the latter case the consent cannot be withheld by the minority without exposing #their votes, which they cannot be compelled to do. When the election is not by ballot and there are several candidates one of whom receives a majority vote, sometimes a motion is #made to make the vote unanimous. It should never be made except by the candidate with the largest number of votes after the successful one, or his representative, and even then its #propriety is doubtful. One negative vote defeats a motion to make a vote unanimous, as a single objection defeats a request for general consent. #By the legitimate use of the principle that the rules are designed for the protection of the minority, and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to #protect, business may be greatly expedited. When there is evidently no opposition, the formality of voting can be avoided by the chair's asking if there is any objection to the #proposed action, and if there is none, announcing the result. The action thus taken is said to be done by general consent, or unanimous or silent consent. #... #-------- # #(I found it interesting because it contrasts so markedly with the W3C's position regarding #unanimity...) # #In any event, I'm including a gzipped, tar'd version of Robert's Rules of Order for those who would #find them interesting (if someone has no access to tar and/or gzip, please let me know and I'll #send them zipped). # #Eduardo # # #John Robert Gardner wrote: #> #> Somewhat belatedly, I'd like to offer the following wording for the resolution #> on how to handle dispuations on interpretation of specification wording: #> #> <resolution type="draft" source="JRGardner"> #> Resolved: #> #> It shall be the policy of the OASIS XSLT Conformance committee that, #> when there should arise any dispute among members or from formal submission by #> observers as to the interpretation of the W3C Recommendation for XSLT and/or #> XPath that said disputes be placed before the committee for a vote as to whether #> to forward the question to the W3C for a formal resolution of the perceived #> ambiguity. The vote can be moved by any voting member present. Such vote would #> be by 2/3 majority of quorum. Failure to achieve 2/3 majority vote reverts the #> issue back to discussion and motion for one position or another to be adopted as #> the XSLT Conformance Committee's own interpretation. #> #> The member motioning for the W3C submission will have responsibility to #> word the submission, submitted to the committee email list for general #> discussion, and the final version of the submitted question(s) will be sent by #> the committee chair on behalf of the committee. Disputations from each voting #> meeting, by phone, or in-person meeting, shall be submitted as a group. #> #> For timeliness on responses, and hopeful resolution at the meeting #> succeeding that in which the question was voted for submission, the draft of #> submitted question shall be required for posting to the Committee listno later #> than 10 working days after the meeting which the disputation arose. #> </resolution> #> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| #> John Robert Gardner #> Enterprise Management Architecture Group #> Sun Microsystems Inc., #> MailStop UBUR02-306 #> 1 Network Drive #> Burlington, MA 01803-0903 | "Earn this" #> | #> Ph. 781-442-0692 | -Capt. John H. Miller #> Fax 781-442-1539 | Saving Private Ryan #> e-mail john.robert.gardner@sun.com #> ----------------------------------- #> http://vedavid.org/diss/ #> http://vedavid.org/xml/docs/ # #-- #Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM #XML Technology Center | Phone: (650) 786-5498 #Sun Microsystems Inc. | fax: (650) 786-5727 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| John Robert Gardner Enterprise Management Architecture Group Sun Microsystems Inc., MailStop UBUR02-306 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903 | "Earn this" | Ph. 781-442-0692 | -Capt. John H. Miller Fax 781-442-1539 | Saving Private Ryan e-mail john.robert.gardner@sun.com ----------------------------------- http://vedavid.org/diss/ http://vedavid.org/xml/docs/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC