Re: Constutituion, tech. ctte, timing
> Hi,
>
> I have no strong feeling on this subject, but I think I would
> prefer to give the charperson a say in the running of the technical
> committee affairs by having a general vote.
>
> The rationale: We should have a technically competent person
> as the chairperson of the committee in the forst place, if one of the
> responsibilities is leading the discussion, coaxing a consensus, and
> representing the committee to the outside world. Given that, it seems
> horribly backwards not to let this person affect genral votes in the
> committee, and loose the benefit of that expertise.
>
> Additional beneficial side effects: this is a more egalitarian
> approach within the tech committee.
>
> I guess that giving the charperson two votesd (regular and
> casting) may well be too much power, and maybe we should have an odd
> number of people in the committe to make ties less likely.
I think you are misunderstanding the traditional reason why the
presiding officer (be it the chairman, speaker, president, whatever)
only cast to make or break ties.
Traditionally, this has been done to make the process -more-
egalitarian, not less.
One of the principles of Parliamentary procedure is that every member
is equal, and should have same right to speak and vote as every other
member. However, to enforce that the rules are followed, someone (the
chair) needs to preside and run things.
The chair has a lot of power, just in being able to control who speaks
and who doesn't, and is the most visible person in the organization. A
lot of weight is placed in what the chair says and does. In large
organizations, the chair is often times denied the right to speak for
or against a motion without stepping down as chair, since the voice of
the chair carries a big influence.
Because of this influence, the chair traditionally does not vote in a
way that would potentially influence how others vote. So he votes
last, after every one else has already voted, (so no one will see how
he votes, and change their mind), and traditionally abstains if his
vote wouldn't have changed the result.
If the vote is by ballot, and no one knows how -anyone- is voting until
all the votes are cast (or in a secred ballot, no one ever knows how
anyone voted, except in unanymous cases), then the chair cannot
accidentally influence others with his vote, and he votes along with
everyone else.
Please note that the chair -never- loses his vote, or the say embodied
by that vote. The vote just isn't expressed if it wouldn't make a
difference.
Giving the chair two votes, one cast as if he weren't the chair, and
one cast as the chair traditionally casts his vote, would give him too
much power, especially in a small committee.
=============
That all said... the situation here (via email) is quite different than
the traditional meeting. Unless the chair takes on the role of mailing
list moderator, the chair can't really control the debate in quite the
same manner. And with some of the procedures being discussed for the
constitution as a whole (such as the maker of a motion running the vote
on a motion, the secretary doing all of the vote recording and
tabulating, the possibility of debate continuing while voting is going
on (with votes able to be changed up until the close of voting), etc),
it is likely that voting procedures will be such that the chair can't
influence the vote anyway (it will probably be some varient on sealed
ballots), so letting the chair vote just like everyone else is probably
fine.
>
> In case the chairperson only has a regular vote, and no
> casting vote, there should be a process for resolving deadlock. Like
> asking the President to vote (the president too should be technically
> competent).
Ties don't really matter. If a vote on a motion results in a tie, the
motion fails (motions traditionally require more "yes" than "no" votes
to pass. An equal number doesn't do it). The chair can even vote to
-create- a tie in order to defeat a motion.
When choosing between alternatives, it is traditional to re-vote in
case no alternative receives a clear majority.
> manoj
>
> --
> All extremists should be taken out and shot.
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: