AW: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating Procedures

Avri Doria avri at
Tue Oct 27 13:20:26 UTC 2009


I put it in, but reworded it a bit.  I think it still says the same  
thing, but please confirm.


On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:13, <KnobenW at> <KnobenW at>  

> To cover the ongoing discussion it is intended to withdraw the  
> motion on the amendment and amend the motion itself in the way as  
> attached.
> I'll insert a revision deadline after having coordinated with the  
> work team.
> Is that acceptable?
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
> Von: owner-council at [mailto:owner- 
> council at] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2009 02:00
> An: Rosette, Kristina; council at
> Betreff: RE: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating  
> Procedures
> The motion to amend the motion specifically deals with the  
> abstention issue.  If the amendment does not pass, then we could add  
> language like that.
> Chuck
> From: owner-council at [mailto:owner- 
> council at] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 8:51 PM
> To: council at
> Subject: [council] Motion to Adopt Updated Council Operating  
> Procedures
> All,
> It is my understanding from our discussion yesterday that we had  
> rough consensus on voting to adopt the updated Council Operating  
> Procedures, but to state in the motion that certain areas remain  
> outstanding (e.g., abstentions) and to require that those areas be  
> priority work to be completed by a date certain.
> Two questions:
> 1.  Is that correct?
> 2.  What areas, other than abstentions, remain outstanding?
> I'll start drafting a substitute motion once I've heard back from  
> enough of you so that I'm comfortable I'm on the right track.
> K
> <Motion-RoP_draft_rev.doc>

More information about the council mailing list