[CCWG-ACCT] Notice of polling of members on Recommendation 11 at the next meeting of the CCWG February 2nd 06:00UTC
nigel at channelisles.net
Mon Feb 1 09:34:18 UTC 2016
(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
>> 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'
>>> 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?
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community