Re: Geopriv compromise proposal

Only to be seen to respond to this:

You mention 3.4. It talks about "substantive issues". It has a 
provision that a vote is "ultima ratio". It has requirements that go 
far beyond what you had in mind in your call for "vote". 

But where in the text does it say it is a "formal vote". This vote is 
e.g. not binding for the director or the AC. So I'm not sure what you 
mean by "formal". "Formal objections" is defined in the process, 
"formal vote" isn't. BTW, I haven't raised a "formal objection". I 
never did so far.

So if you feel that we should not only distinguish between consensus 
and vote, but also between "vote" and "formal vote", you should raise 
that to the AB. In this case minimum requirements for ballots and 
controls would have to be established.

Best, 

Rigo

On Wednesday 17 June 2009, Doug Turner wrote:
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#Votes
>
> A group SHOULD only conduct a vote to resolve a substantive issue  
> after the Chair has determined that all available means of reaching
>   consensus through technical discussion and compromise have
> failed, and that a vote is necessary to break a deadlock.
>
>
> Am I misreading this?