Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
The request to the EC to 'empower the chair' will come in the form of a P&P
change request in November, altough it is becoming evident from this email
thread that it would probably not receive approval. Good discussion though.
I note that no one commented on the 80% response rate on the email votes.
I'm not sure how to interpret that--it is an adequate response rate or not?
My intent on the threat of suspending the EC email voting rights was to give
the chair a motivational tool to encourage all EC voters (that are aware an
email motion is open) to cast a vote. Why? It is my opinion that it is an
EC member's obligation to cast a vote on a motion. We are a small group.
Every vote and every opinion is important to our decision making process and
to the LMSC. Therefore, I want to encourage maximum participation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Quackenbush" <email@example.com>
To: "Bob O'Hara" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
> There is in my view a very important reason why the requirements for a
> motion to be approved by eballot are different from the requirements for
> a motion to be approved during an EC (in person) meeting.
> During an EC (in person) meeting, almost every voting member of the EC
> is present, they are all (hopefully) paying attention and their vote can
> be determined by visual inspection. However, there is no assurance
> during an eballot that anyone except those who vote ever saw the ballot.
> If eballot approval was determined as a majority of those voting
> "approve" or "disapprove", then it would be possible for a motion to
> pass an eballot with ONE "approve" vote and no other votes because no
> one else saw the eballot. Such a possibility is simply NOT acceptable
> > Bob O'Hara wrote:
> > I don't believe that Paul has the authority to disenfranchise an EC
> > member, in this manner. Nor does the EC have the power to give him
> > this authority. This would require a change to the P&P. If you
> > disagree, please cite the text in our P&P that allows him this power
> > or allows us to grant him this power.
> > Geoff is correct that the P&P explicitly makes a non-return by an EC
> > member equivalent to a "NO" vote. From 22.214.171.124:
> > "The affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Executive
> > Committee with voting rights is required for an electronic ballot to
> > pass except when specified otherwise by these P&P."
> > -Bob