On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 12:10:31PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> At 03:05 PM 9/8/2000 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >I believe Rob Courtney also favored option 2 for the replacement "accession
> >of the AdCom member with the fourth-highest level of votes" etc.
>
> That would make a majority. So at least something has been settled.
OK, good.
> >Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
> >propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical meetings.
> >Non-voting members have no voting rights in the constituency and its
> >processes and cannot participate in constituency Adcom teleconference calls
> >unless invited by unanimous consent of Adcom members.
> >
> >OK to proceed as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Hope this one is ok with everyone now, too.
Though I agree with the idea of the adcom determining participation in
the adcom teleconference calls as far as non-voting members are
concened, I really don't think we can use the word "unanimous" without
qualification, because an adcom member may simply not be available for
some period of time. Two choices come to mind:
1) just use "consent of the adcom" instead of "unanimous consent of the
adcom";
This leaves it to the adcom to fight about, if consent isn't unanimous.
2) use "unanimous consent of the adcom members participating in the
teleconference".
The last version allows the decision to be made at the call itself.
I'm happy with either version.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 13:15:43 PDT