Re: Motion 9 Exact dot product PASSES
On Dec 23, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-11-19 14:09:16 -0600, Corliss, George wrote:
>> Final results Y: 27; N: 20.
>> 71 registered Voting Members
>> Needed for quorum: 36
>>
>> The motion PASSES
>
> Hmmm... Does this mean that if thoses who voted NO chose not to vote
> instead, the motion would not have passed because the quorum would
> not have been reached?
Yes, that is a consequence of our Policies and Procedures
However, I HOPE that such a close vote, with reasons for "NO" so clearly articulated, has greater impact on the wording of the eventual standard than simply not voting.
I would remark that such opportunities for "strategic voting" are present in almost any election system.
> Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg