Re: Draft minutes

[John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>]

One fairly simple solution to the voting/non-voting confusion would be to:

1.  scrap the term "non-voting member"
2.  create a new term for liaison members, perhaps "liaison members"
3.  add a paragraph on voting that sets out exactly what is desired, such as:

"The Chair and all Liaison Members shall not vote on the selection of 
candidates, but may participate in (a) all committee discussions 
concerning candidates, and (b) all procedural decisions of the 
commitee, according to its established voting mechanism."

This language is merely an illustration, and may not reflect the 
final division of exactly what votes the Chair/liaisons should have. 
But if we can articulate the line to be drawn, we should be able to 
make that line clear with language similar to this.

John

At 6:28 PM +0700 8/13/02, Robert Elz wrote:
>     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
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>