RE: Robert's Rules of Order on Voting

From: Michael McNamara (mac@verisity.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 16:57:24 PDT

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "old btf enhancement list"

    Precedence: bulk

    David: Thanks for the RROONR research.

    At issue here is not whether we have rules, but what rules do we have.

    I have not completed my research (other demands consumed my time
    today), and it of course isn't simple as we have a hierarchy of rules
    from US and NY State Law governing the operation of a non profit
    corporation; the rules of the IEEE Computer Society, of the IEEE
    Standards Association, of the DASC and of the Working group to
    consider, with some rules imposed inviolable from above, and others
    subject to modification from below; and a ten year history of this
    working group, and a hundred and twenty plus year history of the IEEE.

    That said I see no problem calling for a new vote should that be
    necessary.

    In the meantime the BTF formed its own sub committee to order its own
    approach to this work.

    -mac

    David W. Smith writes:
    > Greetings,
    > Since this came up in the meeting today I would like to clarify the
    > statement on majority vote:
    >
    > 1. The definition of majority vote - the basic requirement is defined in
    > Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th Edition) Paragraph 44 page 387
    > lines 5-15. It states that majority vote is more than half of the votes cast
    > by persons legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a
    > regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.
    >
    > 2. Modifications of Usual Bases for Decision on page 389 lines 20-30
    > describe other possible definitions for a majority vote including "a
    > majority of the members present". It then goes on to discuss the
    > ramifications of such a rule in lines 13-24. This particular modification
    > has the effect of making sure that any yes votes are by at least half of the
    > eligible members present, at a regular or properly called meeting for which
    > a quorum is present, in favor of the agreement.
    >
    > So, both voting standards (plus a number of others are acceptable under
    > Robert's Rules of Order. The SystemVerilog committees chose the more
    > conservative approach to make sure that we had sufficient support for a
    > motion to be passed. For example. If there are 10 members present, 2 say
    > yes, 1 say no, and 7 abstain then it would fail under item two above but
    > pass under the "basic" requirement in item 1. When dealing with small groups
    > of people we felt it would be better to have the majority of those present
    > as opposed to just those voting yes/no otherwise the intent of the committee
    > would not be clear.
    >
    > Another ccouple of comments:
    >
    > 1. Robert's Rules of Order require that the rules be defined for an
    > organization before any votes can take place. Clearly, since we could not
    > decide what the outcome of the vote was, the rules were not defined and the
    > outcome cannot be decided after the fact. The particular topic is not
    > important but the process is.
    >
    > 2. Robert's Rules of Order require that a quorum be present. This means that
    > a quorum must be defined for the "basic" requirement to be met.
    >
    > So, in summary, please understand that the reason I am sending this email is
    > not to cause disruption but to encourage the 1364 committee to define its
    > operating rules clearly and in a public place so that it does not have to
    > spend time in meetings deciding what the rules are (after the fact).
    >
    > Regards
    > David
    >
    > David W. Smith
    > Synopsys Scientist
    >
    > Synopsys, Inc.
    > Synopsys Technology Park
    > 2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
    > Hillsboro, OR 97124
    >
    > Voice: 503.547.6467
    > Main: 503.547.6000
    > FAX: 503.547.6906
    > Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
    > http://www.synopsys.com
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 17:04:06 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.