From keld@ptah.dkuug.dk Tue May 16 16:45:06 2000 Received: from mail.dkuug.dk (IDENT:keld@dhcp192-153-166-34.rdg.opengroup.org [192.153.166.34]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA23033 for ; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:45:06 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from keld@ptah.dkuug.dk) Received: (from keld@localhost) by mail.dkuug.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13606; Tue, 16 May 2000 16:44:37 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:44:37 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Keld_J=F8rn_Simonsen?= <> To: Oblinger James T NPRI Cc: "WG15 (E-mail)" Subject: Re: (SC22WG15.1503) RE: Results of the balloting - forward draft 4 of the Austin Gro up Specification Message-ID: <20000516164437.C13591@light> References: <200005161403.QAA22885@dkuug.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4us In-Reply-To: <200005161403.QAA22885@dkuug.dk>; from Oblinger James T NPRI on Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:03:23AM -0400 On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:03:23AM -0400, Oblinger James T NPRI wrote: > > I assumed the vote required a simple majority of active members. Perhaps > this is in error. The WG15 voting method during a meeting, for > resolutions etc, is that the majority of votes cast wins. It should apply > to email balloting as well. It just seems uncomfortable to report that it > passed with only two votes. > > So I stand corrected and agree to report that the ballot passed with two > votes to approve and no negative votes or abstentions cast. Good. I am not sure we need to tell SC22 about the process that WG15 has used, nor the votes on the ballots, although we probably need an official WG15 document documenting the decision. Kind regards Keld