Re: [P-1788]: Rules for quorum calls and the like.
Dan et al,
On 11/22/2010 06:46, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:14:13 +0100
From: Arnold Neumaier<Arnold.Neumaier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dan Zuras Intervals<intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ralph Baker Kearfott<rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [P-1788]: Anything else to be said about interval overlapping?
Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
.
.
.
I do not approve of this peculiar behavior.
It is twisting the 17th century rules for polite
behavior to take advantage of our relatively
anonymous 21st century way of meeting.
There is a saying: They have power who have the
power to say no.
You are using this behavior to amplify that power
to the point of jeopardizing this standard.
Very well, let's see if old Robert was clever
enough to account for that.
Under section 10.1 of our Policies& Procedures
(which we all voted for when we began this thing)
I formally ask the chair for a quorum call before
each vote. I find it acceptable that it be carried
out in parallel with each vote. I further find it
acceptable that a yea or nay vote be counted as
'present' in the quorum call. Both the quorum& the
outcome of the vote will, therefore, be determined
by the number of members that answer the quorum call.
Quoting from paragraph 2 of section 8.2 we have:
Each member is expected to remain informed
of working group business, either through
attending meetings or through electronic
means, and to participate in votes. The
Secretary (or Vote Tabulator, as appropriate)
records who votes. Those who fail to vote on
two consecutive issues will be dropped from
the roster. These persons can have their
voting privileges reinstated by again
officially placing themselves on the roster.
Therefore, under section 8.2 of the P&P, I further
formally ask that those not participating in two votes
in a row be dropped from the roster. The convention
in 754 was to have someone answer 2 quorum calls in
a row before being given the right to vote again.
I don't see text in the P&P for that but it was the
rule I used& the IEEE supported it.
There is supporting text for all of this in sections
10.1, 10.4, 8.2,& 4.
I apologise to our vote tabulator for making this
request formally but it seems that something like
this is being forced on us to prevent this standard
from being defeated from within.
In the interest of total transparency (in which I believe):
We had discussed these issues a bit among the officers. At this
point, it is clear that I need to review our P&P in detail,
since one opinion expressed by one of the officers was that
the "drop after two non-votes" rule applied only to
votes on standards text, and not on votes on position papers.
Certainly, the intent is to resort to Roberts' Rules as
necessary, and the intent in the modifications of the IEEE
boilerplate for our P&P was to create workable modifications
of Roberts' Rules for the email meeting format. The strategy
the officers are intending to follow over the next couple of
months is to put forward portions of standards text for a vote,
for which there is agreement that two non-votes warrants removal
from the roster.
Again, I'll review our P&P carefully and the officers will
discuss the propriety of quorum calls and the non-voting rule
in the context of position papers. In any case, it has become
clearer how future P&Ps might be made more explicit in this regard.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Baker
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph 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
---------------------------------------------------------------