[CF-metadata] proposed rules for changes to CF conventions
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> 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?
ok with me
>
> 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.
ok!
>
> Happy weekend.
Bon weekend!
Received on Fri Jun 29 2007 - 10:32:45 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Sep 13 2022 - 23:02:40 BST