Re: [adhoc] majority vote

I am not a voting member of this committee but I
hope it will not seem out of turn for me to speak
on this issue. As an elected representative of
the ACH I have a responsibility to the ACH
members whose organizational identity is being
held in limbo while this committee deliberates.

If there is an objection to the voting process
proposed, then it should be voiced. If there is
some further issue that needs to be discussed, it
should be raised and discussed. In the absence of
an objection or a need for further discussion, a
vote should be cast. Neither objection or
discussion nor vote has been tendered thus far
(except for yours, Laszlo, which I appreciate).
Our conference call offered the opportunity for
discussion (which we had), and we all agreed upon
the process to be followed. The vote John
proposed was not unexpected or controversial. In
case of disagreement, a simple "Nay" vote would
have sufficed.

I sympathize with Laszlo's concern about the
nature of the vote, but in that case I think we
really need to have a discussion about what
abstention means. It is inconceivable to me that
we could simply sit and wait indefinitely simply
because votes have not been cast.

I share Lazlo's commitment to the goals of this
effort and I do not want to see the energy that
has gone into it thus far squandered.

Best wishes, Julia

At 9:00 PM +0200 4/12/05, Lˆ°szlˆ„ Hunyadi wrote:
>Dear John,
>
>you are right, we have not made it clear in the
>governance protocol how voting should be made.
>From this, however, it does not follow that (a)
>the chair should state the rules and (b) the
>rules (whatever they are stipulated) cannot be
>altered. I strongly support discussion and
>mutual understanding in order to avoid
>misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and lack of
>confidence which any unilateral step might
>create. I think we should excercise a lot of
>restrain if we really wish to achieve the goals
>envisaged in the past years. My objection to the
>assumption that majority vote was achieved by
>50% of the votes is well founded: if we proceed
>following this logic, a single vote can decide
>an issue in the absence of any further votes. I
>am pretty confident nobody wants such a
>situation.
>
>The fact that I have been pretty active in the
>discussion process may, as I hope, give my words
>some credibility and you will take them as a
>sign positive about our common goal and an
>expression of some worry about and for our
>future. The regrettable lack of sufficient
>responsiveness should prompt us to encourage
>participation and dialogue before resorting to
>measures unsupported by the (at least virtual,
>if not active) majority.
>
>Since I believe there is nothing in the
>governance protocol how majority vote is to be
>calculated, let me suggest the following:
>
>"Majority vote means at least three out of the four votes."
>
>I hope we can vote on this as soon as possible,
>but I also hope that it will be preceded by a
>real discussion.
>
>Having said all this, I hope you and the rest of
>the committee as well as all on the list are
>convinced that I share our main goals and that I
>share some of your worries. However, I do not
>want to sacrify these goals by making decisions
>without gaining the much needed support of all
>concerned.
>
>With best wishes,
>
>Laszlo
>_______________________________________________
>adhoc mailing list
>adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Tue Apr 12 2005 - 16:18:36 EDT