|Re: Quorum definition?||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Robert Hartman (hartmaninformix.com)|
|Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 13:41 CST|
> From: Nancy Wight <wight [at] hpwarr.wal.hp.com> > Subject: Re: Quorum definition? > > As Jim Salem stated, we use a simple majority of households for a quorum. > However, we are fairly adamant that people who aren't at a meeting do not > have the right to block consensus (this could hold us up even LONGER than > it already takes). > ... we try to make sure that we don't try to consense on a > proposal if we know there is someone opposing it who is not there (which, > admittedly, is not always easy). > > - Nancy > New View, Acton I can live with a written policy of "snooze you lose," and a strong tradition of scheduling meetings to accommodate all concerned parties. It goes against the consensus process to schedule meetings when concerned people can't make them. If I knew of such a meeting, I'd go specifically to block consensus until I knew people with strong concerns could attend. I'd expect no less of at least one of my peers. -r
- Re: Quorum definition?, (continued)
- Re: Quorum definition? BARANSKI, November 15 1993
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.