[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Forced Votes
- To: Core Arabeyes Management Team <core at arabeyes dot org>
- Subject: Re: Forced Votes
- From: Abdulaziz Al-Arfaj <aalarfaj at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:10:13 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=NO8fOhKxIknG/eo1lO1ml1U8ZGMm5SsJSnyBgCpgPVQxofm9z2+PBISsZStzSQMenBthdHNTHYHVtCW3tbfcThNnJSdghyWCzpF9rQ8kw49lDAtnPcrTKk+tyiktGS78ZTH3WO1C7MM8SevgEAXSBovyWP47Aix1m74ubG6/U3o=
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:32:35 -0800 (PST), Nadim Shaikli
<shaikli at yahoo dot com> wrote:
>
> We had a "discussion period" and comments were sought after a number
> of times (I can post the log if you like) - nothing was forced (the
> topic took a full 5 minutes before it was brought to a vote). I do
> agree with you, as you noted in the meeting, that we must curtail the
> introduction of new non-agenda'ized topics. The vote on hand was
> something that came up very recently and so it's an exception to the
> norm. The topic of the vote (or our need to make a decision) didn't
> entirely blind-side us either as it was posted recently on the 'doc'
> list without any voiced objections.
I should also add, that another reason this particular incident
shouldn't be a big deal is that we were voting on, or trying to vote
on an issue which seemed (to me) to be a no-brainer. I for one went
into the meeting thinking the vote would be over in a few seconds.
However, perhaps an exception should have been made, and the vote
delayed a little, due to the fact that it was not on the agenda. In
the future, I will try to stick to adding topics on my mind to the
agenda on CVS. I simply was not aware that this was a general policy.
Abdulaziz,