From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Mon Jul 16 20:25:19 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ULaQMAKnfh/j5hxVTp0uLw)" Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:19:00 -0400 From: "Mason, James David (MXM)" Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: A few procedural notes Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: INCITS-V1: A few procedural notes Thread-index: AcfH24DBRPrYKQvxTJGqgsxzRLGaLwARbcil X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2007 03:22:59.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[C65FEDC0:01C7C821] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ULaQMAKnfh/j5hxVTp0uLw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Amen, Jon! A lot of time has been wasted recently by people who understand neither the ISO process nor formal operation of a meeting. I, for one, would like for the INCITS rules to say that one had to be a member of a committee for some period of time -- say six months -- before voting. In the days when V1 was started, of course, all meetings were face to face, and two meetings usually meant six months. V1, currently relying on teleconferences, is having meetings far more frequently than those who drafted the rules envisioned, and so people are becoming eligible to vote before they're really seasoned in the process. Jim Mason -----Original Message----- From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org on behalf of jon.bosak@sun.com Sent: Mon 7/16/2007 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 ====================================================== --Boundary_(ID_ULaQMAKnfh/j5hxVTp0uLw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT RE: INCITS-V1: A few procedural notes

Amen, Jon!

A lot of time has been wasted recently by people who understand neither the ISO process nor formal operation of a meeting.

I, for one, would like for the INCITS rules to say that one had to be a member of a committee for some period of time -- say six months -- before voting. In the days when V1 was started, of course, all meetings were face to face, and two meetings usually meant six months. V1, currently relying on teleconferences, is having meetings far more frequently than those who drafted the rules envisioned, and so people are becoming eligible to vote before they're really seasoned in the process.

Jim Mason


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org on behalf of jon.bosak@sun.com
Sent: Mon 7/16/2007 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
======================================================

--Boundary_(ID_ULaQMAKnfh/j5hxVTp0uLw)--