Re: Draft minutes

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:06:17 +0200 (MEST)
    From:        Avri Doria <avri@sm.luth.se>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.21.0208121800550.10750-100000@delta1>

Since I brought up this at the meeting ...

  | The meeting was then opened to other issues participants might have.
  | 
  | kre: brought up a definitional issue concerning 'usual definitions' of
  |     non-voting members and what that meant in relation to items where
  |     the text appeared to be giving them a vote.
  | 
[...]

  | Issue needs to be reviewed by the list and by the design team.

This is (I think) a minor point that can be handled by some wordsmithing
of the doc, though I'm not sure exactly what - it would be better suggested
by someone who has experienced the process I believe.

There are a few places where the doc says (words like - this case
is from section 5 point 1).

        Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by
        the committee.  The rule must be approved by both the voting and
        non- voting members of the committee according to its
        established voting mechanism.

The issue is that the non-voting members are required to approve (or not)
things, according to the committee's established voting mechanism.

One would assume (and it was confirmed at the meeting) that the normal
established voting mechanism excludes the non-voting members.  In fact,
one would wonder why they were labeled "non-voting" if they normally voted...

So, how exactly do the members who don't vote participate in the
established voting mechanism vote?   And how would that be according to
the established voting mechanism?

One solution for this would be to not have the non-voting members involved.
That would be a change to the substance of the draft as it is though.
I don't know if it would be a change to the way nomcoms have worked.

Another would just be to find some wording that works to allow the non-voting
members to vote in this particular case (and the other few like it).
I assume that's what the text was trying (and failing) to say - that is,
the non-voting members get to vote as if they were voting members, for this
issue.   And then the vote is taken in the same general way as it would
have had only the voting members participated (not the same as then, as
there are more votes now, more eligible, ...).

kre