RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE LETTER BALLOT
RR states majority. That is not 50 %, but > 50 %.
> From: Tony Jeffree[SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 15:14
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE
> CHANGE LETTER BALLOT
> Robert -
> I would certainly prefer that the wording simply states the threshold
> rather than importing the whole of RR. You are right that they are
> mentioned as a fall-back; I would not like to see that change.
> At 08:41 08/10/99 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >Tony, I suggested putting that sentence in to make it clear that a 50%
> >was needed for other motions. I would not be adverse to state that
> >explicitly and continue to soft peddle Robert's Rules. (It is mentioned
> >somewhere that in the absence of other rules of ours to the contrary, we
> >generally follow Robert's Rules. I don't recall where and don't have the
> >now to locate the reference.)
> >Best regards.
> >Robert D. Love
> >Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
> >Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
> >500 Park Offices Phone: 919 543-2746
> >P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656 Fax: 419 715-0359
> >Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA E-Mail: email@example.com
> >Tony Jeffree <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 10/08/99 01:53:21 AM
> >To: Robert Love/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> >cc: email@example.com
> >Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE
> > LETTER BALLOT
> >At 15:07 07/10/99 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >>I wholeheartedly agree with Bob's words. I would additionally add one
> >>additional paragraph that explicitly states that "Voting on
> >>is governed by Robert's Rules of order". You may or may not want to put
> >>paragraph following Bob's words, or where it is indicated that the chair
> >>which issues are technical and which are not.
> >An observation.
> >I know that some working groups enjoy the adversarial atmosphere that can
> >be generated by clever manipulation of meetings and the over-use of
> >procedural mechanisms such as are embodied in Robert's Rules.
> >802.1 has not been one of those working groups; our operational approach
> >has been to attempt to resolve issues rather than to invoke procedures.
> >there is an issue, taking a vote or indulging in procedural devices will
> >not make it go away, so it is a smart move to resolve the issue first.
> >vote then becomes the formal confirmation, rather thatn the attempted
> >of achieving resolution. Consequently, in the time I have been attending
> >802.1 meetings (since 1984), I cannot recall any occasion where it was
> >either desirable or necessary to invoke Roberts Rules. For these
> >while I would in no way object to other working groups making use of RR
> >they see fit, I would be very concerned if Robert's Rules were enshrined
> >the operating rules of 802 as the basis for making decisions in WG