- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:33:09 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
Sam Ruby wrote: > 3) Votes, by themselves, aren't prescriptive enough. The vote was > 47-53. Now what? This is the weakest issue I have, as it can > straightforwardly addressed by requiring a justification. But it still > leaves a few loose ends: when to hold a vote? Only if you are sure of > the results? Early and often? Can somebody just keep retrying until a > vote passes? Some years ago, I was elected foreman of a jury. Immediately we entered the jury room, I called a vote. The jury was divided 50:50. We discussed the case, and when everyone had had a chance to speak, I called a second vote. We were now divided 8:4. The process was repeated until we had reached 11:1, at which point the one person not agreeing with the majority acquiesced, and we were able to return a unanimous decision. I cannot see why a similar process should not lead to an equally amicable and satisfactory outcome here. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 16:33:46 UTC