Re: [adhoc] schedule for upcoming discussion and voting

On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:57 AM, Laszlo Hunyadi wrote:

> Three very brief remarks:
>
> (1) I clearly remember that in our conference call on March 15 Harold
> repeatedly said he could commit himself to one name only as ALLC's
> proposal for the person to chair the 2006 conference. There was no
> objection to it then. I suppose he was following the Glasgow decision
> of the Executive Committee of ALLC. As representative of ALLC here, I
> have to follow it, too.

I would much prefer to hold off on discussing this question until we
arrive at it, on the schedule I sent out over the weekend. Now is the
time to be discussing the governance protocol.

> (2) This steering committee has not accepted the "Robert's Rules" (by
> the way, I do not know its status of acceptance elsewhere).

It is the most widely used and generally accepted set of rules for
conducting meetings. In the absence of specific bylaws governing
questions such as voting, it is generally what has been used, for about
100 years, to decide such questions.

> There was a proposal by a voting member (John) for the "three out of
> five" rule for the future as accepting the spirit of the objection by
> another voting member (Laszlo) and it also received a backing by a
> non-voting member (Lorna). Why should we not proceed along these
> latter lines (of course, if other voting members also accept it)?

One of our four voting members has still not surfaced in this
discussion, and another did not express a vote until well after the
deadline for voting had passed. I am happy to recommend bylaws in the
governance protocol that stipulate such a rule for the future, but all
evidence indicates that if we proceed according to such rules at
present, we are not going to decide even one of the remaining questions
before the conference. The consequences of inaction are more dire, at
this point, than my ALLC colleagues seem to realize, so I'm sure that I
must seem rather overwrought to you, but please believe me: we must
decide these questions before the annual meeting. As I've said before,
if voting members vote, the question of the Robert's rule vs. the
proposed bylaw rule will be moot. Could we PLEASE, therefore, begin
discussing the question before us, namely the governance protocol, and
STOP debating the method of voting?

> I am sure voting activity should be encouraged in every possible way
> rather than step backwards and again accept the logical possibility
> that a single vote (cast) will constitute enough to pass a vote

When your total number of voting members is four, all the numbers
involved are small. This is precisely why the method I am using is
necessary, though: two abstentions can effectively halt the process,
and we have seen already that two abstentions are indeed not only
possible, but have happened.

So, in my next email I will restate my summary of what seem to me to be
the major issues with the governance protocol, and then let us proceed
to discuss that item, please. We are scheduled to vote on it a week
from Wednesday.

John

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Mon Apr 18 2005 - 11:58:15 EDT