[CF-metadata] proposed rules for changes to CF conventions

From: Jonathan Gregory <j.m.gregory>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:14:38 +0100

Dear John

> "The proposal is accepted if there are no outstanding objections and at least two other persons besides the proposer have posted an explicit YES. Members are expected to give appropriate time and thought to the issue before voting or objecting, or else abstain. Members who object are expected to withdraw their objection if they are not able to engage in the process of finding solutions to the objection. "

If the two other persons could include the moderator, I think that's OK. The
moderator should of course summarise the discussion objectively, but as someone
who will have studied the proposal, ought to be allowed to express a view. So
there could be three people (at minimum) who had understood the proposal and
supported it: the proposer, the moderator, and someone else. OK?

Votes would only be taken if there is not a consensus. In Paris we discussed
the alternatives of (a) deciding by cttee majority or (b) require all to vote,
in which case near-unanimity is reqd (one may vote against). We preferred (b)
but understood that some members might be guided by others. However a proviso
about exercising their vote responsibly would still be appropriate. Thanks.

Your final sentence should apply to anyone who comments in the debate, I think.
Since consensus is the best outcome, it's good if anyone who expresses an
objection explicitly withdraws it if they change their mind. However, I think
that if an objection is answered, and the objector does not reassert it within
the time-limits, we ought to assume they will accept the change. I think that's
reasonable because the time-limit is quite long.

Happy weekend.

Jonathan
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 10:14:38 BST