> Even from this text, there is multiple possible interpretations.  :-\
Yes, but only one correct interpretation. 
Dave
On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:

> Was nobody looking at our rules:

> 
http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/voting.php

> - Measures pass on simple majority.

> - Formal votes will be taken by roll. 

>  If you are not present, your organization 

>  does not vote (effectively the same as abstain).

Please see my prior emails (from a week or two ago) about this:

- there are multiple accepted definitions of "simple majority"

- "quorum" is not defined

- there is also a question of the definition of "not present"
-- does that not present in the room?  (which is how I have interpreted
it, but there has been some bending of that rule on occasion)  Or
not present at the meeting at all?  Or not present that day?  Or
...?

> Here you can see "abstain" == "not voting",

> and wiki clearly tells "simple majority"

> means more than 50% of the passed votes.

Even from this text, there is multiple possible interpretations.  :-\

> Why was there a discussion about this?

> 

> Jeff, how old is this file?

SVN says:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

r312 | jsquyres | 2010-06-16 16:30:51 -0400 (Wed, 16 Jun 2010) | 2 lines

Changed paths:

   M /trunk/secretary/index.php

   A /trunk/secretary/voting.php

Add voting rules

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The file has not changed since that date.

In mails a week or two ago, I discussed the history of the MPI-3 procedures
document, too.

-- 

Jeff Squyres

jsquyres@cisco.com

For corporate legal information go to: 
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

_______________________________________________

mpi-forum mailing list

mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org

http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum