RE: [atlarge-discuss] Quorum: Members said

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

It is quote normal to have a "quorum" meaning a minimum number of
members must have voted in order to accept the results as binding. It
has nothing to do with the "normal" majority of the panel.

The quorum is generally set to 2/3 which in this case would be 8 and
which is acceptable in my opinion.

Stating that this is not of importance if all panel members vote is
nonsense since there can be reasons to not vote in that case, for
re-votes (as per RH suggsetion) and in general obstruct the working of
the panel.
With a "room" for 3 panel members to go awol on a vote this is far less
likely to happen.

Kind regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz] 
> Sent: 14 June 2003 12:51
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Quorum: Members said
> 
> 
> 
> >Reply to a private question.
> 
> If the members elect 11 people to sit for them on a Panel then it is 
> certainly not acceptable when only 6 show up to vote.
> 
> If of those six three object and three are in favour, those 
> three have 
> effectively a veto.
> If one more crosses the line, 4  have a "majority".
> 
> Utterly unacceptable!  That would be a repeat of the infamous end of 
> the  first Steering Committee of the IDNO, where quorum was 
> ignored to the 
> point that 3 members out of 21
> >claimed a "majority".
> 
> -joop-
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de