Guest Yoav Hebron Posted January 24, 2013 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 08:58 PM An issue has been identified in a document requiring clarification (two different interpretations). Two different proposals submitted for the clarification. One of the proposals has to be selected to resolve the ambiguity in the interpretation of the document. A vote was casted and one proposal got the majority, but non of the two proposals got 2/3 of the votes. Is the majority enough for this case? If not, what is the next step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanSullo Posted January 24, 2013 at 09:50 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 09:50 PM Is the document in question your bylawas or constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yoav Hebron Posted January 24, 2013 at 09:56 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 09:56 PM No it is a specification document which is pending approval and release. We set a rule that states that each errata requires 2/3 to get into the draft before the final approval of the draft, but this is a special case of having to decide between two proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:06 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:06 PM One proposal could be offered as a main motion, then the other as a substitute. Majority votes, in sequence, would decide which one is (eventually) adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BryanSullo Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM But, in this case, their own rule requires a 2/3 majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yoav Hebron Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM Bryan is correct. For a proposal to get into the spec it needs to get 2/3 of the votes, which in this case none of the two proposals will get. Just to clarify, each vote in this case had to select one of the two proposals. Selecting both was not an option (but members could abstain). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:28 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:28 PM We set a rule that states that each errata requires 2/3 to get into the draft . . .Each errata? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yoav Hebron Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 at 11:37 PM Yes. The rule was set for approving a submission to change the existing spec. If the submission gets 2/3 it goes in, otherwise the spec stays as is. This is a special case where the spec can't stay as is and has to be clarified since there are two different interpretation to the same text. Submissions were made for each interpretation, and now the committee needs to chose which one to accept as no compromise was reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM Each errata?Yes.I think Guest_Edgar was simply questioning your Latin. (Be thankful he chose not to pick on your English.) Anyway, since rules created by your own organization seem to have left you stuck in this situation, it doesn't matter what the rules in RONR say. If the existing document is so terrible, then the members may wish to adopt whichever of the two proposals is favored by a majority, as determined by the motion to Amend one of them like Dr. Stackpole suggested.On the other hand, the members may wish to remain intransigent and leave the existing document.And on the third hand, they may wish to work out a compromise that is acceptable to two-thirds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:10 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:10 PM I think Guest_Edgar was simply questioning your Latin.Well, that (in the absence of our own Mr. Elsman), but primarily the use of the word "errata" to describe what appear to be two proposed clarifications of ambiguous text.M4g857 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Happy Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:20 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:20 PM errataa list of corrigenda; also : a page bearing such a list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:27 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 at 01:27 PM a list of corrigenda; also : a page bearing such a listYes. I had fixated on the idea that the errata were the errors, not the corrections. I think I'll leave the Latin to Mr. Elsman, wherever he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.