Re: [council] Minutes from 19 October NC teleconference

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Philip,

> I have noticed a couple of mistakes in the Oct 19 minutes.
> 
> 
> Item4
> Decision D3: The motion failed with 7 votes in favor (Aus der Muhlen, Carey,
> Chicoine, Cochetti, Kane, Sheppard, and Vandromme), 4 votes against (Katoh,
> Poblette, Quaynor (by proxy), and Stubbs), and 3 abstentions (Harris,
> Roberts, and Swinehart (by proxy).
> 
> Surely this motion passed.

==> Whereas I did not drafted 19 Oct minutes, I have my hand notes.
      Quoting my scribe notes:
      14 voting, 2 proxies, 7 "in favor". If majority means superior
      (strictly biger than half, like in real votes when 50% plus 1 
      is required), then motion failed. To be checked.
      End quote.
    Then immediate comments from Roger and Philip, that this particular
    votes makes them uncomfortable to be taken, and it is better to go
    for A (which indirectly suggest they consider this motion as passing).

    Question for clarification to Louis: failed or passed ?

    My personnal comment related to experience of other bodies, that
    when votes are about rules' change, then usualy 2/3 is requested
    not 50 percent only. I would suggest we take it into consideration
    for the future.

> 
> Item 12
> a typo - The budget commitee are establishing a "bank" account  - not a back
> account.


==> Thanks for spotting this one, I correct immediately.
> 
> Philip.
> 
> (I have put an agenda item for formal acceptance of these minutes for the
> Dec teleconference - this may be a better way to do it rather than
> acceptance by default/silence! )
> 

==> I believe the NC has been doing it this way for months, which is IMHO
    the correct procedure. Thanks !

    Elisabeth