---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:16:44 -0500 From: "Diane I. Hillmann" Subject: Fwd: RE: Proposed rewording in Process doc To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK All: Stuart and I concur with the following changes: The wording as it stands: 5.7. Voting on proposals. Voting shall be limited to scheduled meetings and publicly announced conference calls. Voting shall be limited to UB members present at the meeting or conference call and able to participate in the discussion. UB members who cannot be present may present their arguments for or against a proposal in writing prior to a meeting (this shall not constitute a vote). UB members who cannot be present may explore other options with the chair, if they cannot be present for an important vote. In all cases, a vote may not be cast by a member who is not present, either physically or virtually, for the relevant discussion. We suggest the following substitution: 5.7. Voting on proposals. Voting shall be limited to scheduled meetings and publicly announced conference calls. Except for special circumstances approved in advance, voting shall be limited to UB members present at the meeting or conference call and able to participate in the discussion. UB members who cannot be present are encouraged to present their arguments for or against a proposal in writing prior to a meeting (this shall not constitute a vote). UB members who cannot be present may explore other options with the chair, if they cannot be present for an important vote. [last sentence eliminated] I think this wording bends over backwards in accommodating the bylaws, without opening us to votes by those who haven't heard the arguments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:55:53 -0000 From: Andrew Wilson Subject: Re: Proposed rewording in Process doc To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Fwd: RE: Proposed rewording in Process docThe wording as it stands seems to allow a chair to publicly announce a conference call for the following day. Should the wording include something about the period of notice for both scheduled meetinsg and conference calls? Perversely, I'm not sure I like imposing these limitations on the ability of the UB to have ad hoc meetings/calls at very short notice when something important suddenly needs to be acted on. Andrew ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:32:46 -0000 Reply-To: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage Board Sender: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's Usage Board From: Andy Powell Subject: Re: Proposed rewording in Process doc To: DC-USAGE@JISCMAIL.AC.UK OK, that makes sense, but the fact you had to explain it means either that I'm thick (a likely possibility) or that it isn't clear enough (or both of course! :-) ). I wonder if it would be helpful to more clearly distinguish between 'the discussion' and 'the vote', along the following lines: 5.7. Voting on proposals. Voting shall be limited to scheduled meetings and publicly announced conference calls. Except for special circumstances approved in advance, voting shall be limited to UB members present at the meeting or conference call and able to participate in the discussion. UB members who cannot be present [for the discussion] are encouraged to present their arguments for or against a proposal in writing prior to a meeting (this shall not constitute a vote). UB members who cannot be present [for a vote but who were present for the discussion] may explore other options with the chair.