<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Quorum and Definition
Harald et al.
My offlist-reply to Harald's earlier email was a mistake. I must have hit
Reply when I meant to hit Reply All. My apologies to Harald. But, I think
harald's reply speaks to an interesting issue. The low participation rate of
the GA membership in votes.
Sincerely,
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I see you have chosen to reply off-list, so I'll follow that.
>
> --On 25. juni 2001 12:33 -0400 Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com> wrote:
>
> >> The GA in its vote on the voting rule made the following decisions:
> >>
> >> - For a "normal" vote, a majority of the cast votes suffice.
> >> - For a change of the rules, a 2/3 majority with a certain minimum
> >> number of cast votes suffice.
> >>
> >> Adopted by a majority of 56 in favour, 5 against.
> >
> > Harald, do you mean to say that 61 voters is a sufficient quorum to pass
> > such voting rules for a body of 290+ members?
>
> When you ask 290 members to state their opinion, and 229 members choose not
> to state an opinion, I see no other way to do it.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|