| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Jim, It is obiviously related. The SUMO motion is part of the document you referenced as "this version of the referenced procedures document." Bob jim.s3@JUNO.COM wrote: Mr. Spillers, 1. The Chairs notes this objection, but since it has been responded to multiple times before, no further response will be provided. 2. This objection is not related to the procedures document referenced in the thread below. Jim Schoening Chair, SUO WG On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:03:05 -0700 Robert Spillers <skydog@pacbell.net> writes:Jim, I restate my objection to the inclusion of the SUMO motion of June 14, 2003 as a passed motion (Motion # 2 on the web site referenced below). This motion received 31 yes votes from 79 eligible voters. 40 yes votes were required for passage. The rule that an email vote must receive a yes vote from a majority of the eligible voters is stated in both the IEEE By-Laws and also (specifically for the SUO WG) in a unanimous resolution of the IEEE-SA Board of Governors. Both the by-law and the BoG resolution were in effect when the vote was taken. Both were brought to the attention of the chair at the time of the vote. Bob jim.s3@JUNO.COM wrote: |