Re: Rule change needed ;-)

["Geoff Thompson" <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>]

At 09:34 AM 10/26/00 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> At 00:50 26/10/00 -0700, Geoff Thompson
> wrote:
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > At 09:09 AM 10/25/00 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> > > You may be interested to know that our current
> > > operating rules require us to pass all Email ballots.  I quote from
> > > 3.4.2.1:
> > >
> > > "A majority of eligible voting SEC members must vote approve in
> > > order for the ballot to pass."
> >
> > Is that in alphabetical order?
>
> What other order would you propose? ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> > > Looks like our
> > > motion on cookies is in good shape, Geoff ;-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> >
> > Geoff
As the "order"ing is obviously required, but not
specified in the rules it would seem to me that it is the duty of the
chair to specify the "order". Other possibilities might
be:

        

age

        

beauty

        

Working
Group number

        

Seniority

        

Clockwise
seating order at the last meeting

        

Counter
clockwise seating at the penultimate meeting

The possibilities are endless

Geoff