RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing

My email has been down for a couple of days, and in reviewing this 
thread, I found this alternative reflects my view on the issue.

Thanks for all the skull sweat,

Rex Brooks

At 12:29 PM -0500 2/21/03, Steve Anderson wrote:
>If we are content with our current policy (my understanding of which 
>has changed significantly through this thread), then I'd opt for 
>(d), and replace it with the following:
>
>     "Note that for email votes, quorum is implicitly reached, 
>allowing the result of vote
>     to be binding.  Also note that the result of the vote is 
>determined by simple majority,
>     which is to say the majority of votes cast, excluding abstentions.."
>
>The thing that I think people (myself included) may be uncomfortable 
>with is the use of "majority" for email votes, rather than "majority 
>of membership".  I'd advocate changing our policy to require 
>majority of membership for email votes.  In my experience, email 
>votes are used for issues that warrant the entire membership's 
>attention, consideration and opinion.  If we take this path, the 
>replacement text would be:
>
>     "Email votes require majority of TC membership in order to pass."
>
>--
>Steve Anderson
>SSTC & WSSTC Secretary
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:]
>Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:01 PM
>To: 
>Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Quorum required for good standing
>
>
>On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 07:13, Luc Clement wrote:
>>  Karl and chairs,
>>
>>  Unless I've missed something, we don't seem to have come to a consensus.
>
>Since this is not a decision-making body, whether we have consensus or
>not is, I think, irrelevant. What is important is that we have a
>common understanding, and that, I'm afraid, we do not have, as witness
>some of the messages sent lately.
>
>As chair of the TAB and of the TAB's SC that deals with Process, I will
>ultimately have to deal with this, whether it comes to the TAB through a
>request from the Board or through a self-initiated TAB action.
>
>What I would like to know is what people consider the best course of
>action in order to reach a common understanding that during
>email votes the concept of quorum is of no significance because
>everybody is considered present, and therefore whichever gets majority
>wins (with only YAY or NAY being significant, and that abstentions are
>not negative votes).
>
>I'd very much appreciate if you, the chairs of OASIS TCs, could send me
>a response to the following possible alternatives:
>
>a) leave things as are
>b) remove the sentence "For the purposes of mail vote counting, quorum
>    is constituted by the whole TC membership." (but remember that this
>    returns us to a situation fraught with misunderstandings resolvable
>    *only* through a comprehensive reading of Roberts)
>c) amend the above sentence to read "For the purposes of email voting,
>    quorum is constituted by the whole TC membership and is always true."
>d) replace the sentence in (b) above to xxx (please provide succint and
>    clear alternative)
>e) other
>
>Please note that the above is not a vote ;-) Feel free to send me
>your responses directly if you so prefer.
>
>
>
>>  I would very much appreciate for Karl and the OASIS board to clarify the
>>  issues that have surfaced on the topic of email votes and what
>>  constitutes a quorum.
>>
>>  Luc Clement
>>  UDDI Spec TC Co-chair
>>
>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO, Starbourne Communications Design,
Executive Director, Humanmarkup.org, Inc.
Vice Chair, Secretary, Webmaster, OASIS HumanMarkup Technical Committee
Webmaster, OASIS Web Services for Interactive Applications Technical Committee