Re: confirming body voting rules (was: Re: Recommendations for closingopen issues.)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

The reason I don't object to Avri's proposal is that a simple majority
is never going to be in conflict with any reasonable voting rule in
the confirming bodies, and it doesn't prevent them having a more
stringent rule. I wouldn't object to Jim's proposal either, but it
just isn't a big deal imho.

   Brian 

James M Galvin wrote:
> 
> Speaking personally (not as Editor of the document) I have a different
> view of the consensus on this point.
> 
> As pointed out, there were some significant advocates in favor of
> specific rules for the voting rules of the confirming bodies.  I agree
> there was no consensus on creating such specific rules.
> 
> >From that discussion came the counter-proposal for the NOMCOM document
> to not say anthing about the voting rules of the confirming body.  It is
> my opinion there was consensus on this point because some of those who
> favored specific rules preferred no rules if they could not get the
> specific rules first suggested.  The reason for this was they agreed
> that the voting rules for a confirming body are more properly stated in
> the respective "charters" for those bodies.  Thus, the rule in 2727bis
> should change to say that a confirming body makes a decision about
> confirmation according to its ordinary process for making decisions.
> 
> If I'm wrong and you agree with the consensus as stated below, then
> there is nothing for you to do.
> 
> If you believe I'm right and do not agree with the consensus stated
> below then you should send a note to the mailing list stating as such.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>     -------
>     Issue 6
>     -------
> 
>     Re. The rules under which the CB decides to accept or not
>     accept a candidate should be strengthened from the RFC2727
>     rule:
>            that at least one-half of the sitting
>            members agree with the decision.
> 
>     There was also a counter proposal that the rule should changed
>     to leave the full discretion up to CB, i.e. the rule for one-half
>     of sitting members be removed.
> 
>     While there were some strong opinions that a stronger dictate
>     on the CB decision procedure was warranted, and some strong opinions
>     that the CB should pick using a process of its own choosing without
>     any predefined rules, there was no consensus for changing the language
>     of RFC 2727.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland