Qualification: entire TC body = members in "good-standing" rght?
--------------------------------------------------------
Darran Rolls http://www.waveset.com
Waveset Technologies Inc
(512) 657 8360
--------------------------------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Anderson [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:23 PM
> To: Jeff Kenton
> Cc: Hal Lockhart;
> Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
>
> This, based on my experience, a desired effect of an email vote --
> ensuring that the vote carries the consent of the (majority of) the
entire
> TC body.
> --
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Kenton [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:07 PM
> To: Jeff Kenton
> Cc: Hal Lockhart; Steve Anderson;
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
>
>
> Jeff Kenton wrote:
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Steve Anderson [mailto:]
> >>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:30 PM
> >>> To:
> >>> Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
> >>>
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>> If we take this path, the replacement text would be:
> >>>
> >>> "Email votes require majority of TC membership in order to
pass."
> >>>
> >
> > Note that a literal reading of this phrase makes deliberate
abstentions
> > equivalent to "NO" votes.
> >
>
> In theory, this could also mean that you require twice as many "YES"
votes
> to pass something by email as you would in a meeting with a minimal
> quorum.
>
> This isn't necessarily an objection -- but it's good to know what
you're
> saying.
>
>
> --
> --------------------------
> Jeff Kenton
> DataPower Technology, Inc.
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
