Re: SUO: RE: Clarification of a 'No' vote
>Matt,
> I don't agree. If the work agrees to work on this document, it's
>their base, their starting poing, their Base Document. A Working Paper is
>the work of individuals, not the group. To vote NO is to decide the group
>does not want to work on this document. Ian and his company need to know
>whether all their work is in a direction the group will pick up and work on,
>so the group needs to decide if they want to work on this document. Let's
>not get hung up the definition of label of Base Document. We could even
>drop the label and ask the basic question, "Do we want to work on the
>document?"
>
>Jim
Let me suggest that, since this 'group' is only a virtual entity,
and since evidently only some of those on the group will ever work on
the document, it seems daft to say that the 'group' is working on it,
or indeed on any document in particular.
The appropriate item to put up for a vote might be what seems to be
the only substantive issue here, which is should *some people*
continue to work on Niles' document?
However, I would first raise a :
Point of Order.
Since Niles and Adam obviously propose to continue to do work on
Niles' document, and as long as they go on posting things about it,
some others will chime in from time to time, the actual outcome of
the vote seems to be irrelevant to its declared pupose. I therefore
propose that the vote be abandoned and the Base Document proposal be
withdrawn, since it is irrelevant and potentially disruptive.
-------
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that according to Roberts Rules, we must
vote on the point of order before proceeding to the vote on the main
issue. But your call, since you are in charge.
Pat Hayes
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes