NICE Eiffel Standards Group -- Library Committee Mailing List To post to list: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com To send mail to the Chairman of the committee: NICE-ESG-Libs-chair@atlanta.twr.com Administrative matters (sign up, unsubscribe, mail problems, etc): NICE-ESG-Libs-request@atlanta.twr.com
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:48:03 +1100 (EST) From: cmingins@apple.fcit.monash.edu.au (Christine Mingins) Subject: Amended Voting Form To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com Here is the amended voting form: TIMETABLE --------- Voting begins: Wednesday 1 March 1995 Voting ends: Monday 13 March 1995 VOTING FORM: ------------- MOTION VOTE ---------------------------|----| LIB95-PAJ-PART_COMPARABLE | | ---------------------------|----| LIB95-PAJ-COMPARABLE | | ---------------------------|----| LIB95-TWR-HASHABLE | | ---------------------------|----| LIB95-TWR-HASHABLE2 | | ---------------------------|----|
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:40:56 +1100 (EST) From: cmingins@apple.fcit.monash.edu.au (Christine Mingins) Subject: Call for votes To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com > > Tower wishes to withdraw LIB95-TWR-PART_COMPARABLE and > LIB95-TWR-COMPARABLE and instead support LIB95-PAJ-PART_COMPARABLE and > LIB95-PAJ-COMPARABLE. We continue to support LIB95-TWR-HASHABLE and > LIB95-TWR-HASHABLE2 and are eager to answer any questions concerning > them. This is acknowleged - a revised voting format follows. > > I do have several questions and comments regarding procedure: > > - Do we have a current list of voting members of the library > committee? > Current members are: Christine Mingins Dino Valente Bertrand Meyer Fred Hart Andrew MacGaffey Paul Johnson Per Grape > - In light of the committee rules for voting on change proposals, > it would seem that calling for simultaneous votes on competing > proposals, such as the ones on PART_COMPARABLE and COMPARABLE > listed above, is unfair. The problem is that a significant > majority of committee members could vote for one or the other > proposal but neither would pass since a proposal requires > greater than half of the active members on the committee to vote > for it. I submit that competing proposals should be voted on > serially rather than in parallel. Ideally, some effort would be > made to resolve the two proposals so that a serial vote would not > be necessary. > I apologize if I caused any problems here. Yes, as Paul's motion was essentially an amendment to the Tower proposal, we should have called a vote on the first proposal, and if it was successful, then vote on Paul's amendment. > - This brings up my last point of contention. I do not believe that > it is fair to require a majority of current committee members to > vote yes on proposal for a proposal to pass. I think that passage > should simply require that more yes votes be cast than no votes. > Abstentions, late votes, and failure to vote should not be > counted as a no vote, as they currently are. These non-votes > should not affect the calculation of a majority. > The NICE regs for Technical Committees (Sec 5.2) state "All decisions of a Technical Committee, ... shall be taken by a majority vote of the Technical Committee Delegates". I don't think this is unfair in the current context, where we are proposing, discussing and voting on amendments to a set of classes which has already been voted in as a proposed Kernel library. We should ideally be reaching a consensus; if a motion goes to a vote, and the majority of the committee vote in favour, then that's close to a consensus. If, however, only one or two people vote at all, then that indicates to me that at the very least the topic requires further discussion, no matter how the votes fell. Any voting pattern falling in between still suggests that more discussion is required.
