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>
<br>Jacqueline<br><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 2/16/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Luc Faubert</b> <<a href="mailto:LFaubert@conceptum.ca" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">LFaubert@conceptum.ca</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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 href="mailto:mmwg-bounces@wsis-cs.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">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 href="mailto:mmwg@wsis-cs.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">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 href="mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">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 href="http://bertola.eu.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bertola.eu.org</a>]<-----<br> <a href="http://bertola.eu.org/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://bertola.eu.org/</a> <- Prima o poi...<br><br><br><br><br><br>--<br>Jacqueline Morris<br><a href="http://www.carnivalondenet.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
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 href="http://www.carnivalondenet.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
www.carnivalondenet.com</a><br>T&T Music and videos online