[CCWG-ACCT] Notice of polling of members on Recommendation 11 at the next meeting of the CCWG February 2nd 06:00UTC

[Nigel Roberts]

(for the avoidance of doubt, the word 'poll' and 'vote' are synonyms).



On 01/02/16 09:33, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> I have a linguistic problem with the meaning of the Charter.
>
> In my native variant of the English language, the construction appears
> to be 'such votes do not constitute votes'.
>
> Does poll really mean 'straw poll' ??
>
>
>
>
> On 01/02/16 09:29, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
>> If we come up with multiple different proposals and put these to the
>> vote/poll, we will exclude the Participants because only the
>> Members are polling/voting.
>>
>>     "In appointing their members, the chartering organizations
>>     should note that the CCWG-Accountability's decision-making
>>     methodologies require that CCWG-Accountability members act by
>>     consensus, and that polling will only be used in rare
>>     instances and with the recognition that such polls do not
>>     constitute votes."
>>
>>     "In a rare case, the chair(s) may decide that the use of a
>>     poll is reasonable to assess the level of support for a
>>     recommendation.  However, care should be taken in using polls
>>     that they do not become votes, as there are often
>>     disagreements about the meanings of the poll questions or of
>>     the poll results."
>>
>> I do not have a concern about polling about the current 2/3 proposal.
>>
>> I personally am comfortable with the 60% solution, if it gets a Public
>> Comment.
>>
>> el
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2016-02-01 09:17, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>> We are only "polling," not "voting."
>>>
>>> It seems, however, that the poll will have the same effect as a
>>> vote, to the extent the effect is discernible from the Chairs'
>>> email.
>>>
>>> On Monday, February 1, 2016, Dr Eberhard W Lisse
>>> <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>      That would be change our working method to voting, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>>      el
>> [...]
>>
>