<div>Dear all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Two points :</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) I wanted this important issue of voting mechanisms to be addressed and this vote seemed like a good opportunity to test and discuss the respective merits of the two possible modalities; I am happy with the support my suggestion got, even if late
</div>
<div>2) on a procedural matter, I did not want that one of the first choices we had to make (ie : a voting procedure) to be decided without an explicit discussion. This would have set a bad precedent for the working of this mmwg group. This is why I brought up the issue again.
<br> </div>
<div>That said, I understand from a brief discussion with Avri this morning that if we change the number of votes at that stage on the vote already prepared, we need to reset and pay a new 40 bucks.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Therefore, for the sake of efficiency and moving forward, I am OK to get along a traditional 1 vote for this specific case, under the provision that the modalities I proposed are seriously discussed in the coming weeks.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hope this will help us get our two chairs ready ASAP and at the same time open a dscussion on an important aspect of any future setting up of coordination groups, steering committees, etc....</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, at that stage, Jacqueline, let's keep the vote the way it is, unless it can be changed to two votes without additional costs. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jacqueline Morris</b> <<a href="mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com">jam@jacquelinemorris.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Tallying the discussion: so far I have seen:<br><br>2 for Bertrand's proposal<br>1 no preference<br>2 let's go ahead ASAP the way we are and get back to work on other things
<br>1 vote as we are until someone gets 2/3<br><span class="sg"><br>Jacqueline</span>
<div><span class="e" id="q_10973349386ee532_2"><br><br><br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Luc Faubert</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca" target="_blank">LFaubert@conceptum.ca
</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Our charter says "Chairs can either be designated by consensus of the MMWG or by a 2/3 vote." So if we want to go by the book, unless we can reach consensus on another chair I think we should vote until another candidate gathers 2/3 of the votes -- or change our charter.
<br><br>Now I'm not sure I understand Bertrand's proposal. What happens in the case we have the following situation where V are voters and A, B and C the 3 candidates ?<br><br>V ABC<br>1 xx<br>2 xx<br>3 x x<br>4 xx<br><br>
<br>- Luc Faubert<br>ISOC Québec<br><br><br>________________________________<br><br>From: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org" target="_blank">mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org
</a>on behalf of Jacqueline Morris<br>Sent: Thu 2006-02-16 07:14 <br>To: Vittorio Bertola<br>Cc: <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:mmwg@wsis-cs.org" target="_blank">mmwg@wsis-cs.org</a>
<br>Subject: Re: [Mmwg] Important : procedure for runoff election <br><br><br>Ok - sorry.<br>Can we have some discussion on this until the 18th, then? <br><br><br>On 2/16/06, Vittorio Bertola <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org" target="_blank">
vb@bertola.eu.org</a> > wrote:<br><br> Bertrand de La Chapelle ha scritto: <br> > Dear Jacqueline,<br> ><br> > I am a bit sad. I made a very simple and argumeted proposal for this <br>
> second round, suggesting that we allow for two votes instead of one<br> > only. Justification is reiterated below in the copy of my previous mail.<br> ><br> > Unfortunately, you are calling for a second round of elections with the
<br> > traditional single vote rule, without any mention of the alternative. I<br> > suppose you and others simply did not notice my mail in the flurry of<br> > exchanges. This is OK . I trust you.
<br><br> Actually, I thought that it was so clear that your suggestion was a good<br> one that it didn't need explicit support, but if it needs some, here is<br> mine.<br> --<br> vb. [Vittorio Bertola -
v.bertola [a] <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://bertola.eu.org/" target="_blank">bertola.eu.org</a>]<-----<br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://bertola.eu.org/" target="_blank">
http://bertola.eu.org/</a> <- Prima o poi...<br><br><br><br><br><br>--<br>Jacqueline Morris<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.carnivalondenet.com/" target="_blank">www.carnivalondenet.com
</a><br>T&T Music and videos online<br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Jacqueline Morris<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.carnivalondenet.com/" target="_blank">
www.carnivalondenet.com</a><br>T&T Music and videos online </span></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>mmwg mailing list<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:mmwg@wsis-cs.org">
mmwg@wsis-cs.org</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg" target="_blank">http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg</a>
<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>