[WG-P3] P3 Ballot - Approving Previous Notes into Minutes

McDowell, Brett bmcdowell at paypal.com
Thu Jun 10 11:30:21 EDT 2010


By having those unapproved notes up on the web site we have essentially "read them into" our repository of records.  They do not need to be approved, in fact logic would lead one to say they are impossible to approve since WG approvals require a majority vote yet there were no majories present in these meetings and therefore it's impossible to approve by an *informed* majority of the WG.   

So whether I voted "no" or not, this ballot was likely to either (a) fail or (b) folks not present in those discussions would be voting in favor on blind faith that the records were accurate -- neither is an ideal outcome.

They are on the wiki, and that should be enough.  Why must they get some stamp of approval by the full WG?

-- Brett

On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Robin Wilton wrote:

> Hi Brett -
> 
> I think this proposal was made on the following basis...
> 
> 1 - the meetings in question were just discussions, and did not try to call for votes or make decisions...
> 
> 2 - it was suggested (by those more familiar with the by-laws and rules applicable to this kind of thing) that sets of meeting notes could be "read into" the minutes of a subsequent meeting (provided, as above, that this was not a stealth means of insinuating non-quorate decisions/votes into the record).
> 
> On that basis, I am comfortable voting "yes"
> 
> R
> 
> McDowell, Brett wrote:
>> I'm voting "no" (see below) because notes taken in a meeting that was not quorate should not be recorded as approved meeting minutes in my opinion.  I recommend we only approve meeting minutes from meetings that actually happened (from an official point of view) and otherwise post un-approved "notes" from other informal gatherings such as a scheduled meeting that took place without a quorum.
>> 
>> -- Brett
>> 
>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Mark Lizar wrote:
>>  
> 



More information about the WG-P3 mailing list