Subject: RE: Vote Ambiguity
From: Bailey, Stephen (SBailey@model.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2004 - 08:40:25 PST
Please find attached the updated minutes.
-Steve Bailey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@server.eda.org]On Behalf Of Peter Ashenden
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 5:20 PM
> To: stds-dasc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: Vote Ambiguity
>
>
> John,
>
> Re 1: Thanks for pointing this out. [Steve, could you
> please amend the
> notes of the telecon, for the record? Thanks.]
>
> Re 2: The ballot message links to the webpage at which the procedures
> documents are available. Two documents are annotated as
> being balloted.
> The first is linked to as "Draft revised DASC procedures" and
> the second is
> linked to as "Draft procedures for the DASC-SC". Question 1
> of the ballot
> refers to the first document, and question 2 of the ballot
> refers to the
> second document.
>
> The third document listed on the web page is a model document for WG
> procedures. It was not the intention to vote on that at this stage.
> Instead, WGs can use the document as a template for their procedures.
>
> I hope this clarifies the process.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Ashenden
>
> --
> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au
> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au
> PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532
> Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
> Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-dasc-sc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of John
> > Michael Williams
> > Sent: Saturday, 17 January 2004 15:19
> > To: stds-dasc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: Vote Ambiguity
> >
> >
> > Hi Peter.
> >
> > Two comments:
> >
> > 1. Minutes:
> > In the PDF Minutes circulated, I think I
> > suggested the percentage idea for DASC-SC
> > quorum (allocating a quorum by officers +
> > percent of WG's). Someone else suggested a
> > similar percentage ~20% vs 25%; that may
> > have been John Shields. I also suggested
> > removal of the "don't count abstentions"
> > wording.
> >
> > 2. The reason I'm writing now: The vote
> > Email says, "That the DASC adopt the revised
> > DASC procedures". However, there is a single
> > PDF called operating procedures for DASC,
> > and others for DASC-SC and DASC-WG. So,
> > either the single PDF or the collection of the
> > three might be the question being voted.
> >
> > I think the intent, from the Minutes, is that
> > the vote is for all three PDF contents at once,
> > but I'd like confirmation of this. It isn't
> > clear that other voters will have received the
> > same vote Email.
> >
> > I assume we should not vote differently for
> > different PDFs?
> >
> > --
> > John
> > jwill@AstraGate.net
> > John Michael Williams
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jan 19 2004 - 12:35:35 PST