Re: Proposed agenda for meeting 2000-09-06 09:00-12:00EDT

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

John Robert Gardner wrote:
> 
> 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)?

Yes of course -- I was just trying to make sure it was understood that
for that kind of votes there is no need for a 2/3 majority.

As an aside, in groups of this size there will be many cases where
a majority vote and a 2/3 vote will mean the same in terms of numbers ;-)

Eduardo

> 
> 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/

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         fax:    (650) 786-5727