Leslie, This procedure will definately guarantee that we get a result in such a weighted vote. If anyone is not able to join in they will give a proxy to their colleague so there will be a result. It is precisely because we may not be able to choose between two strong candidates that we need a sophisticated way of tossing a coin. I am not in favour of your proposal for choosing someone who is objected to the least (unless we send them another questionnaire asking them to tell us what objectional characteristics they may have and why they should not be on the Board!) I know you want to avoid 'deadlock breaking' if at all possible but we must have an agreement on when to invoke it. We only have a short time on Friday and we can not end with a disagreement on whether or not we have reached deadlock. Brian. In message <39BD89B3.23A19B89@thinkingcat.com>, Leslie Daigle <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> writes >Howdy, > >Brian Moore wrote: >> We suggest that, if after three votes during our teleconference next >> Friday we are still deadlocked, we do the following. > >I assume we're all still in agreement that this is a suggested >time to declare deadlock -- I don't agree to setting any predefined >automatic criteria for invoking it (there are too many possibilities >of extenuating circumstances!). > >As I said on the last teleconf, there is a very real possibility >we will get deadlocked because we have strong candidates. In that >case, we really are using random measures to pick between them, >but playing it out in terms of randomly weighting inputs. I find >that an uncomfortable thought, and truly hope we will be able to >get to consensus before we get anywhere near having to to this. But, >if we do, I would like there to be a follow-on input on a separate >question, with the results noted somewhere in non-public archives: >namely, who is willing to assert strong OBJECTION to the candidate >selected. If there are no strong objections, we simply couldn't >pick between good candidates. If there are strong objections, >it's cause for pause. > >Finally, I appreciate the effort that you & Gerry have put into >this mechanism (having spent some time thinking about it and dead-ending >myself), but I do not think it's guaranteed to break deadlock >if we have less than perfect attendance & participation. I'm simply >making an observation, hoping for perfect attendance & participation, >not suggesting any tweaks. > >Leslie. > > >-- > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary... > ... or was that the other way around?" > -- ThinkingCat > >Leslie Daigle >leslie@thinkingcat.com >------------------------------------------------------------------- -- B W Moore Lucent Technologies Tel: +44 1206 762335 Fax: +44 1206 762336 =========================================================================