On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Kirk Hall via Public <public@cabforum.org> wrote:
> Eric, look again at the rule: > > > > *** All voting will take place via the Public Mail List. Votes not > submitted to the Public Mail List will not be considered valid, and will > not be counted for any purpose. > > > > In this case, Microsoft’s vote did take place “via the Public Mail List”. > It’s vote was submitted “to the Public Mail List”. To be hyper technical, > the Bylaw does not say the vote must APPEAR on the list during the voting > period (just that the vote must occur), and any number of things can > prevent a message to the Public list from being forwarded – I have had my > messages trapped or even disappear before. > Kirk, It is not factually correct that Microsoft's vote occurred via the Public Mail List. As Peter has pointed out, Microsoft's vote happened via direct mail to you. It was not received because it was posted to the public mail list by you, or by any other member. Do you dispute this simple conclusion? If so, can you provide support and details as to how the vote occurred? > I think it’s unfortunate that we are parsing the Bylaws so closely as this > – this has always been an informal organization, and getting hung up on > interpretations is a waste of time. > As Chair, I would have hoped you would have been more considerate to the legitimate and reasonable concerns being raised here. Even if you feel it is a waste of time, it seems wholly inappropriate, in such a role, as to dismiss legitimate concerns like this. > In any case this seems pretty silly, as a repeat vote, with the same > retroactive clause, would end up with the same result. > That is not something you can demonstrate, nor have you allowed for any feedback from any of the abstaining or non-voting members to consider that. I believe it is highly inappropriate for you to make this statement.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
