3.0.5.32.20010818163312.039e9380@farance.com">
At 20:38 2001-08-17 -0700, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
Jim is right that the polls are closed and late votes may not be counted.
It is an unusual circumstance when immediately after the vote members wish to change their votes. Robert's Rules do provide for just such an event. The procedure is to move for a reconsideration of the vote. It is a motion that takes precedence over all other motions. The rationale given is (RONR page 304, lines 18 -28)
Reconsider - a motion of American origin - enables a majority in an assembly, within a limited time and without notice, to bring back for further consideration a motion which has already been voted on. The purpose of reconsidering a vote is to permit correction of hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to take into account added information or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the vote.
You probably want to include the next sentence that follows the above:
"To provide both usefulness and protection against abuse, the motion to Reconsider has the following unique characteristics:"
This certainly seems to be our situation.
Considering that the motion has been presented, discussed, and voted on over several weeks, I don't think you can make the case that it was a motion in haste. Furthermore, Robert's Rules (RONR) also states (the obvious awareness) that its rules can be used as delaying/disruptive tactics. I hope we don't create that kind of culture in this WG.
I belive you have a couple points wrong regarding RONR.
The rules regarding this motion are complex, but as it applies to this situation there are two considerations
(1) Timing
(2) Who may make the motion.
The answer to these questions depends on whether the SUO is considered an assembly or a standing committee. The rules on reconsideration are different for each as are some other RRO rules and the New York law on not-for-profit organizations (e.g. IEEE).
If the SUO is an assembly (of members) then the motion for reconsideration must be made within two business days of the announcement of the final results of the vote (in this case Monday) and must be made by a member who voted yes.
According to Robert's, it is only one day (see RONR, page 305, lines 30-34). The results were announced on Thursday: the chair stated the tally and the result of the vote (the motion passed).
But more importantly, you were not one of the voters on the prevailing side, so you don't have the right to make a motion to reconsider.
If the SUO is a standing committee (of the IEEE-SA or some other subordinate organization of IEEE) then any voting member may move the motion (even if they did not vote in the previous ballot) and there is no time limit.
Each Computer Society SAB (Standards Activity Board) Working Group (WG) is an assembly itself. One of the ways we know this is that standing committees have their membership appointed by the parent committee. The members of the SUO WG are not appointed or approved by the CS SAB, i.e., CS SAB does not choose who is/is not a member of the SUO WG (RONR, page 474, line 34, through page 480, line 30). Likewise, we aren't members (in the parliamentray sense) of CS SAB because we don't have the right to "full participanting in [CS SAB's] proceedings" (RONR, page 3, lines 8-10). Thus, we aren't a standing committee of the CS SAB (or IEEE-SA either).
On this assumption (and in a separate note) I will move for reconsideration of the SUMO vote. Additionally I will put a parliamentary question to the chair for a ruling on whether SUO is an assembly or a standing committee since it has implications beyond this motion.
Common sense tells you: if every motion were forced to be reconsidered by the minority, very little work would get done in any committee. The exceptions you refer to concern standing and special committees, i.e., outside the main business of this assembly. The main business of this assembly is the development of standards, as described by our PAR. We are an assembly.
However, a much simpler solution is for someone who voted yes on the SUO motion to move for reconsideration of the vote. Moving for reconsideration does not mean the member making the motion is changing their vote. They may vote yes (or no) in the new vote. It means that the vote will be taken again.
I request that you focus on constructive criticism upon the technical tasks at hand, rather than procedural moves.
-FF
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure