The P&P defines a quorum of 50%. I suggest that a smaller quorum
is more practicable. George Corliss tells me this is not a moot point,
and actually might be of concern given that the P&P passed by only
two votes despite his repeated calls to vote.
A majority of all people eligible to vote is an awfully large quorum
for a globally dispersed professional organization. Wikipedia says "In
an ordinary society (such as a local club) that follows Robert's Rules
of Order, if the quorum is not specified in the organization's bylaws ,
it is a majority of the members. This can cause problems because, in
most such organizations, only a smaller portion of the membership
usually comes to meetings, and without a quorum, no business may be
done. It may be impossible to correct this problem within the bounds of
parliamentary procedure. For this reason, it is a good idea to include
a provision in the bylaws setting the quorum at some smaller number."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum)
Cheers,
Scott
> Maybe the point is moot now that the P&P has been adopted. If it's not
> moot, perhaps you could advise me about the email address which is the
> "entire IEEE 1788 alias". I've been seeing several addresses, and I'm
> just not sure where I should point.
Not moot. Yours and some other concerns have come up that should be
discussed and perhaps amendments proposed.
<stds-1788@xxxxxxxx>
> Dumping inattentive people from the rolls is one solution as you note,
> but that's got obvious deficiencies. (How can I re-enter the fold once
> I'm dumped?)
P&P says that you just re-register with IEEE.
This IS an issue. The P&P passed by only 2 votes, in spite of my repeated
nags. However, the intent of IEEE is that there is no standard unless there
is sufficient enthusiasm and consensus within the proposing community.
George
> Corliss, George wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> Since yours is not a vote in favor of the entire P&P as it stands, I an
>> counting your vote as “No.”？
>>
>> I encourage you to post your reservations to the entire IEEE 1788 alias for
>> open discussion.
>>
>> I note that the P&P attempts to minimize the impact you cite of a very high
>> standard for a quorum by disqualifying members who fail to vote in two
>> successive ballots. My interpretation is that takes affect AFTER the P&P are
>> adopted. That IS an issue. At this point, we are two votes short of the
>> required 2/3 majority, although I have sent several nagging messages to all
>> registered who have not voted.
>>
>> George
>>
>> On 11/25/08 5:41 PM, "Scott Ferson" <scott@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I vote YES on the document as a whole, and each part of it except the section
>> defining the QUORUM, on which I vote NO.
>>
>> I suggest that a much smaller quorum is more practicable. A majority of all
>> people eligible to vote is an awfully large quorum for a globally dispersed
>> profession organization. Wikipedia says "In an ordinary society (such as a
>> local club) that follows Robert's Rules of Order
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order> , if the quorum is
>> not specified in the organization's bylaws
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bylaws> , it is a majority of the members[5]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum#cite_note-4> . This can cause problems
>> because, in most such organizations, only a smaller portion of the membership
>> usually comes to meetings, and without a quorum, no business may be done. It
>> may be impossible to correct this problem within the bounds of parliamentary
>> procedure <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure> . For this
>> reason, it is a good idea to include a provision in the bylaws setting the
>> quorum at some smaller number." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Corliss, George wrote:
>>
>> According to my records, you are eligible to vote on the attached Policies
>> and Procedures, and you have not yet done so. Voting closes Nov. 27. It
>> requires 2/3 majority of those REGISTERED TO VOTE, so it is important that
>> you cast a vote. If you have concerns, please make them known, too.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> On Oct. 30, Baker had written:
>>
>> IEEE P1788 members,
>>
>> I have modified the Policies and Procedures document according
>> to suggestions I have received. I attach a PDF of that document
>> and put it up for an official vote. This will be according to
>> the following procedure:
>>
>> 1. Please send a "yes" or "no" vote to the vote tabulator
>> (George Corliss, george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) within
>> four weeks. (This would be by November 27, but the vote
>> tabulator has the discretion to extend this.)
>> [From Vote Tabulator: Voting ends Nov. 27]
>>
>> 2. Any ³no² votes on portions of the document shall be accompanied by
>> proposed changes that would cause the ³no²-voting party to vote ³yes.²？
>>
>> 3. If you had previously voted on the earlier version, please
>> vote again on this version, because there have been substantial
>> changes.
>>
>> 4. We intend to adopt this document with a 2/3 favorable vote.
>> [From Vote Tabulator: P&P says that is 2/3 of those registered
>> to vote, not of those voting.]
>>
>> I will not stop the vote this time until the deadline is reached.
>>
>> Once we affirm the document, we will send it to the Sponsor (IEEE MSC)
>> for approval. Then, we'll be officially in business, proceeding with
>> voting and approving positions and actual text of the standards
>> document.
>>
>> In the mean time, people who have positions should be
>> thinking about submitting position papers to the officers
>> (technical editors and archivists). You should crystallize
>> your informal contributions to the mailing list into a
>> clear document, which we will assign a number and make publicly
>> available via web interface. That way, we can call for official
>> votes on them. Through this mechanism, for example, we would
>> decide on guidance to word the standard according to "infinity
>> is not part of the underlying number system" (or the opposite).
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> R. Baker Kearfott
>> (acting chair, IEEE P-1788)
>> --
>>
|