From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 10:19:51 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_04VwYxEYZZ/+uAQHZb5bnA)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:17:14 -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: AcfGN6cY0cBfConNSFyJz6CNBDHj1wAADHQwAACr6RA= X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_04VwYxEYZZ/+uAQHZb5bnA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I agree that given more time, and since we do have more time (i.e. until next Wednesday), I would like to see us work together as a group (united) to find consensus and make the recommendation that we have been asked to make. Cheers, -Stephen From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Tom Ngo Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:05 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible: . I interpret a yes/no vote on "X with Comments" to ask whether the voter considers "X with Comments" to be better than "Y with Comments" or "Z with Comments", i.e., the best of the three. . We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between two alternatives, "X with Comments" and "Y with Comments", would you prefer "X with Comments"? I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I'm just pointing out that given a bit more voting time, there may well be room for arriving at consensus on more limited statements. 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 10:55 AM 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_04VwYxEYZZ/+uAQHZb5bnA) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I agree that given more time, and since we do have more time (i.e. until next Wednesday), I would like to see us work together as a group (united) to find consensus and make the recommendation that we have been asked to make…

 

Cheers,

-Stephen

 

From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of Tom Ngo
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 1:05 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 

I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible:

 

·         I interpret a yes/no vote on “X with Comments” to ask whether the voter considers “X with Comments” to be better than “Y with Comments” or “Z with Comments”, i.e., the best of the three.

·         We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between two alternatives, “X with Comments” and “Y with Comments”, would you prefer “X with Comments”?

 

I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I’m just pointing out that given a bit more voting time, there may well be room for arriving at consensus on more limited statements.

 

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 10:55 AM
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_04VwYxEYZZ/+uAQHZb5bnA)--