From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 10:12:55 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_gp/7Hlrs+IRN3Bdz7RWc5g)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:10:08 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Content-language: en-us Thread-index: AcfGN/Df2CNe/36GTYKXS5vc/Y/IqgAAGe1A X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_gp/7Hlrs+IRN3Bdz7RWc5g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Rob. Thanks for the definition of meeting minutes, I was a bit confused there. Chuckles, tough one, ya know J... Also, thanks for the parliamentary lesson, I think I missed that class. You may recall that I respected the Chair's right to deny the motion as out of order despite the fact that my first motion had already been denied. Although I voted "Yes, with comments" during the roll call my motion for reconsideration was to my first motion, not to the roll call vote which as I understand it is a further technicality that does allow me the right to motion for reconsideration (in order). Again, you may recall that I did respect the Chair's right to deny without dispute. Parliamentary lessons aside, you may also note that below I was answering Rex's request to proof the meeting minutes and only listed my observations, which according to the parliamentary details are actually quite important to someone's interpretation of what happened (as you can see from your misunderstanding). Have an awesome day! Thanks, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:55 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 > > The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in the > notes > > [Section 8] > 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the > Chairman > 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls > 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with > comments"; denied by the Chairman These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said. The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee. Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote. The ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their mind. How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming from you was out of order. -Rob --Boundary_(ID_gp/7Hlrs+IRN3Bdz7RWc5g) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Rob…

 

Thanks for the definition of meeting minutes, I was a bit confused there. Chuckles, tough one, ya know J...

 

Also, thanks for the parliamentary lesson, I think I missed that class. You may recall that I respected the Chair’s right to deny the motion as out of order despite the fact that my first motion had already been denied. Although I voted “Yes, with comments” during the roll call my motion for reconsideration was to my first motion, not to the roll call vote which as I understand it is a further technicality that does allow me the right to motion for reconsideration (in order). Again, you may recall that I did respect the Chair’s right to deny without dispute.

 

Parliamentary lessons aside, you may also note that below I was answering Rex’s request to proof the meeting minutes and only listed my observations, which according to the parliamentary details are actually quite important to someone’s interpretation of what happened (as you can see from your misunderstanding).

 

Have an awesome day!

 

Thanks,

-Stephen

 

From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 12:55 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 



>
> The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in the
> notes
>
> [Section 8]
> 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the
> Chairman
> 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls
> 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with
> comments"; denied by the Chairman


These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said.  The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee.  

Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote.  The ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their mind.  How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming from you was out of order.

-Rob

--Boundary_(ID_gp/7Hlrs+IRN3Bdz7RWc5g)--