Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: Vote on Motion 7

All,

Yes, I may have slipped on this, advancing the motion as a simple
"yes-no" motion, when we had discussed the three-alternative version
privately.  (However, privately, it wasn't clear whether we all
agreed three alternatives should be advanced.)

In past motions, the mover has been free to withdraw the motion at
any point, without action from the chair or acting chair.
IMO it would be appropriate
to allow Juergen to do so with Motion 7 if he judges that to be
wise.  (Withdrawing motions during voting could save time and effort,
in instances such as when it is judged that they will not pass.)
If he does so, he is welcome to put forward the three-alternative
motion for a second and discussion.

Best regards,

Baker

Corliss, George wrote:

As pseudo-parliamentarian, let me weight in with my OPINION on procedures.

Formally, Motion 7 has been advanced to voting, so our only process consistent with our Policies and Procedures is to vote on it as advanced, Yes or No.

Informally, if the mover and the seconder are convinced by Juergen, they could ask that Baker withdraw the motion.  Our formal P&P do not seem to allow that, but many face-to-face meetings allow that move.  The alternative would be for the mover and the seconder to vote NO, and let voting take its course.  That sounds to me like a waste of time.

Out Policies and Procedures seem to allow a three-alternative motion as Juergen has suggested.  I suspect no alternative would win the 2/3 majority necessary for adoption, but one alternative MIGHT gain a 2/3 vote in a resulting 2-two run-off.


Current voting tallies:  We have 72 registered Voting Members.  We need 2/3 (= 48 votes) to pass

Motion 5 - Table of operations (voting ends 10-Sep)
   32  Yes; 1 No
Motion 6 - Multi-Format (voting ends 15-Sep)
   20  Yes; 1  No
Motion 7 - NaI (voting ends 21-Sep)
   0  Yes; 1 No

If you are a registered Voting Member, PLEASE VOTE. Not voting is equivalent to voting "No."

If you are not a Voting Member, I can send you instructions for how to register.  Not hard.  No cost.

If you don't know whether you are a Voting Member, email me, and I'll tell you.  Or, wait a few days, and I'll be nagging you by name for not voting :-)

Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Haggerty Engineering #296
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
414-288-6599; -288-4400 (GasDay); -288-5579 (Fax)
Www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg




On 9/1/09 3:40 AM, "J. Wolff v. Gudenberg" <wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maarten, P1788
I proposed a three way choice for voting
1.. YES ,there should be a unique NaI
2. NO , there should be no NaI at all
3. NO , there should be a NaI with payload

I think we need some guidelines how to proceed further, even if none of
the alternatives reaches the quorum.

Juergen
Maarten van Emden schrieb:

As acknowledged in Motion 7, no IA operation can have NaI as result.

Do we need NaI at all?


I think you vote for option 2
2. NO , there should be no NaI at all


--
=======
       o          Prof. Dr. J. Wolff v. Gudenberg,  Informatik 2
      / \         Univ. Wuerzburg,  Am Hubland,   D-97074 Wuerzburg
  info2 o        Tel.: +49 931 / 31-86602  Fax: +49 931 / 888-6603
    / \  Uni             e-mail: wolff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   o   o Wuerzburg         http://www2.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/





--

---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott,    rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx   (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work)                     (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------