Re: Suggested resolution - #826: Section 4 - Removal of the IAOC Chair

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sunday, January 30, 2005 21:42:32 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



--On lørdag, januar 29, 2005 11:47:00 +0200 Kai Henningsen
<kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It was the fraction "2/3" that Russ objected to in the first place,
pointing out that this means 6 out of 8 if everyone's present - which he
thought was too much of a required majority.
e I
Which just points to a lower fraction, not to absolute numbers.

I understand that you and Scott both think the same thing - although I don't understand why, I'll ask the question in a different way - is using the term "5/8 of the voting members" an acceptable phrase? As long as we have 8 voting members, that translates to 5 members.

For those who want to see what they are discussing under different
scenarios, here is the number of people needed to remove the chair with
varying fractions and varying number of members of the IAOC:

Number   Out of 8  Out of 7 Out of 6 Out of 5
3/4        6          6        5        4
2/3        6          5        4        4
5/8        5          5        4        4


Suggestion: Instead of "2/3 of the voting members", why not just say "2/3 of the voting members, excluding the chair". So if the IAOC is at full strength, it takes 5 people to remove the chair.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]