Re: [wg-d] Voting (Was "WG Principles")

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> Another question is when voting ought to occur and where it out to occur. 
> In other words, (i) are we talking about voting on each iteration of a WG 
> draft, pieces of a product, or only on the final version as a whole, and 
> (ii) are we talking about voting inside the WG or in the GA, or both? 

Clearly anyone can comment at any time, especially in an electronic
context.

Electronic voting using e-mail techniques is somewhat cumbersome, far more
so that in-person voting.  In both forms it is necessary to call for a
vote on an issue and to count the results.  But in the e-mail context we
need to allow considerable time for people to respond.

This militates for fewer rather than more calls for votes in an electronic
context than in a face-face context.

This is something that we will have to work through.

One concern: let us not try to use the relatively high time cost of voting
be used as an argument to avoid clear decision making processes through
the use of "chairman makes a guess" methods, i.e. "consensus as seen by
a not-unbiased chairman".

 
> (At least in my mind, the answers would sway what I personally felt about 
> voting qualifications. I'm much more comfortable with the one-person, 
> one-vote idea if that vote comes as a GA referendum at the very end, and 
> we allow individuals, organizations and constituencies to comment upon 
> and influence the drafting process within the WG.) 

It is important to have full clarity through the entire process.
Otherwise all that happens is that the GA will be presented with a fait
accompli.

And remember, there is no reason not to allow the GA the full power to
amend or rewrite a documdent if it so chooses to engage in that kind of
activity.

(And if one says that such must be in a "working group" then all that will
happen is that we will see the ancient device of "the committee of the
whole", i.e. a working group with everybody in it.)

		--karl--