From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Mon Jul 16 12:23:38 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:20:53 -0400 From: Stephen Peront Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: A few procedural notes In-reply-to: <200707161856.l6GIuM7J488977@jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com> 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: AcfH26TM1grQlshOSJmnt/ukkRfAUwAAjmGQ X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 Hi Jon... | the minutes, but a request to record the names of those voting is | out of order because straw polls are not votes. My request is that the names of the people who motioned for the straw polls be noted. Motions are supposed to be recorded in the meeting minutes. They should still be recorded. | Stephen did not move reconsideration of the vote on "Yes with | comments"; he simply attempted to move "Yes with comments" again. Stephen was interrupted by more than one person before he could even finish explaining what the motion was for. Stephen knows what Stephen was motioning for, and Stephen was motioning for a reconsideration of how to word the "Yes, with comments" since it was so close to achieving consensus. Stephen was also going to point out that his former motion had been denied and would be why he would be allowed to make this motion. This is a reasonable request when trying to move a committee towards consensus, wouldn't you agree? Thanks, -Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of jon.bosak@sun.com Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 2:56 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: INCITS-V1: A few procedural notes I was going to send this Saturday when Patrick asked us to leave the weekend alone (thank you, Patrick, I had a lovely Sunday). [speront@xinn.com:] | The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't | see in the notes | [...] | 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls Straw polls are a purely informative device meant to aid members in coming to an understanding of which way the wind is blowing. In other words, they are part of the discussion of a question. They have no procedural significance and need not be (and often are not) recorded at all. I have no objection to noting them in the minutes, but a request to record the names of those voting is out of order because straw polls are not votes. | 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, | with comments"; denied by the Chairman Stephen did not move reconsideration of the vote on "Yes with comments"; he simply attempted to move "Yes with comments" again. This was out of order because we had already completed the vote on "Yes with comments," and it is against the rules to keep proposing the same or similar motion in the hope of eventually getting a different result. Had Stephen moved to reconsider the motion, his motion would have been out of order because reconsideration (as Rob Weir has noted) can only be moved by one who voted with the prevailing side, which in this case was the side voting No. But that is not in fact what Stephen did. No motion to reconsider anything was made by anyone during the meeting. | 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 There is no such thing as reconsideration of a motion. Reconsideration applies to the adoption of a motion, not the motion itself. To put it another way, it is meaningless to speak of reconsidering a motion, because making a motion is prior to any formal consideration of it. You can't reconsider something that hasn't been considered yet. | 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. There seems to be a misunderstanding here regarding the nature of a formal process like the one specified in the JTC1 directives. A vote on a DIS is not like a vote on which restaurant to go to for lunch; it's more like the vote on a state ballot proposition to fund school bonds. If a ballot proposition requires a 2/3 vote for approval, and it gains 60 percent approval, you don't hold another vote the next day in the hope that the voters will change their minds; you have to start over. If the JTC1 directives allowed such a thing (and I'm not sure they do), this would mean setting another meeting date and properly noticing consideration of the question far enough in advance for people to make arrangements to attend, just as we did in the first place. We've been working up to a formal vote for almost three months. The questions and the timeline were established weeks ago. We knew that on 13 July we would be voting on a specific set of possible alternatives. We had plenty of time to consider where we stood on those alternatives. During the meeting scheduled to consider these questions -- a meeting in which every voting member was present -- we engaged in a process (straw polls) intended to see whether there was a possibility that we might reach a consensus. When we had spent as much (actually a bit more) than the time allotted for this, we moved to formal votes on the alternatives before us. None of the alternatives available to us gained enough votes for approval to pass. So it goes. The process now moves along to its next phase, which is where V1 reports to the INCITS Board that none of the available alternatives gained enough votes to pass, and the Board figures out what the US position will be -- while we move on to processing the comments on which we haven't reached a consensus disposition yet. Jon ====================================================== Jon Bosak, Distinguished Engineer, Corporate Standards Office of Global Government Strategy, Sun Microsystems Chair, Universal Business Language Technical Committee Member, INCITS V1 and ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 jon.bosak@sun.com http://www.sun.com/standards ======================================================