| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
An extension of Matthew's suggestion:
Voting options = Yes, No, Abstain (no opinion), Abstain (not participating)
Active members (registered to continue membership) = Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion) + Abstain (not participating)
Voters = Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion)
Quorum: Voters / Active members > x%
Majority: Yes / Voters > y%
Cheers,
Tim.
*************************************************************************
*
* Dr. Timothy M. KING CEng MIMechE PhD DIC ACGI
* Executive Consultant, Technology
* LSC Group, Concept House, Victoria Road, TAMWORTH, UK - B79 7HL
* Switchboard: +44-1827-708000 Fax: +44-1827-708500
* Direct telephone: +44-1827-708535 (with VoiceMail)
* Mobile telephone: +44-7813-131779
* e-mail: tmk@lsc.co.uk Internet: http://www.lsc.co.uk/
*
*************************************************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2002 09:50
> To: Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: RE: Gathering questions and issues with IEEE motion
>
>
>
> Dear Jim,
>
> I would like to explore the issue of non-voters here.
>
> It seems to me that non-voters are most closely equivalent to
> non-attenders at a meeting. If we adopted this convention then
> the following consequences would flow:
>
> 1. We would need to establish a quorum for votes. If a quorum
> was not reached, then the vote would fail for that reason alone.
> A no vote therefore has some, but minimal impact. Do we have
> a quorum specified for different types of vote?
>
> 2. If the current ruling from IEEE stands, we might want to
> encourage those who truly wish to abstain simply not to vote,
> since voting "abstain" is at least a semi-no vote.
>
> 3. This has implications for treatment of non-voters. The
> current penalties would seem inappropriate.
>
> I guess the point I am trying to make is that whatever the
> voting rules, with an intelligent group, people will try to
> find a way to express their intent accurately. I guess
> therefore that we should not get too excited about the ruling
> that has been made. If we accept it, we at least have some
> definitive rules, and we will know what it means when we
> cast our votes.
>
> I know accepting this has the minor inconvenience of repeating
> the vote on the SUMO, but that is an easier route than fighting
> the hierarchy, and in any case, at some point this will need
> to be done anyway to progress.
>
> Please give this your consideration as an alternative strategy.
>
>
> Matthew West
> Principal Consultant
> Shell Information Technology International Limited
> Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
> Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
> Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
*************************************************
COMPANY NOTICE
This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and
privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you
are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive information for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies
of this message. If this e-mail contains attachments, you should ensure they are checked for viruses before opening them.
*************************************************
This e-mail originates from LSC GROUP LIMITED. Registered in
England & Wales No 2275471
Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG
*************************************************