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

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Feb 1 09:33:14 UTC 2016

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
> [...]

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list