[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 11, 2/3 board threshold, GAC consensus, and finishing

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 03:47:56PM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> I have just asked Becky to slightly modify her text by referring to"
> Board's Actions inregard with GAC aDVICE " and not ' GAC Advice" due to the
> fact that IRP could be invoked against Board's action and not an AC or a SO
> .

That all seems fine, but not directly relevant to the point I was
trying to make.

> Second the alternative of 60% is MUTUALLY  EXCLUSIVE  with Her Proposal
> after editorial amendments mentioned above.
> We CAN NOT TAKE BOTH OF THEM AS TWO  MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE OPTIONS

Why?  I don't get it.  

One proposal (yours) governs the level of support within the board to
take a specific kind of decision.  

The other proposal (Becky's) governs how various bodies may interact
when making such a decision.  In this particular case, it is a rule
that says that, if a particular body issues a specific kind of advice
that triggers special handling by the board, that same body may not
also participate in any reconsideration or other community actions of
the board's subesquent actions.  Since there is only one body that has
the power to issue the specific kind of advice (the GAC), that's the
body the rule applies to.  I think it's not too much to say that, if
we invent future ACs that function similarly, then similar rules would
apply to them.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com