From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 13:53:14 CST
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> >There are a number of people, yourself included, who are actively,
> >either maliciously or from ignorance, misrepresenting the relationship
> >between the UTC and WG2, and of the standardization process, under the
> >guise of "innocent" discussion. ...
>
> I have merely been asking searching questions, partly from ignorance I
> agree. If you or anyone else considers that I have been misrepresenting
> the relationship, you are free to correct me.
Your main misunderstanding seems to be your belief that WG2 is a
democratic body; that is, that it makes decisions by majority vote.
Decisions are made by explicitly reached consensus, and ballots are an
instrument of reaching consensus. Every "no" vote must be accompanied
by comments such that, if they were accepted, the "no" vote would be
changed to "yes". ("Yes" votes can have comments too.) The result of a
"no" vote is that the process loops until all such votes are resolved.
Although the UTC does not have a vote as such, being a liaison member,
its input is treated as if it were vote comments.
If consensus cannot be reached, the proposal is eventually dropped, I suppose.
-- Time alone is real John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> the rest imaginary http://www.reutershealth.com like a quaternion --phma http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 13:55:50 CST