search

apastsya / jcpnext4

0 stars 0 forks source link

JCPNEXT4-34: Update the EC Standing Rules #30

Closed apastsya closed 7 years ago

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Jira issue originally created by user heathervc:

Update EC Standing Rules: https://jcp.org/en/procedures/ec*standing*rules

1) Comply with JCP 2.9 requirements in Section 7: https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#7

Item 5 Any vote may be accompanied by comments (which are are particularly encouraged in the case of abstentions.) When comments include specific suggestions for change these should be logged in the Issue Tracker to ensure that they are addressed. "No" votes must be accompanied by references to the Issue Tracker items (if any) that if resolved would persuade the member to change the vote to "yes".

Add requirements to Voting section of EC Standing Rules https://jcp.org/en/procedures/ec*standing*rules#Voting

2) Add best practices for notifying appropriate JCP alias vs individual Program Office members for issues with voting, ballots, logging into EC accounts, etc.

apastsya commented 10 years ago
apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

Since the Process Document explicitly states the requirement to log issues to address concerns raised in comments I'm not sure we should duplicate this language in the Standing Rules.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

Compare the Voting Section of the EC Standing Rules to the section of the JCP Process document. Links to the Process document in the EC Standing Rules are preferred to adding the same language in both documents. The only necessary change is to this sentence in the Voting section: The table in Appendix B shall be used as a guide in determining the order of precedence for motions and the voting required for the motion to pass. (Note: Appendix B will be removed) Change to: The results of the last EC Election shall be used as a guide in determining the order of precedence for motions and the voting required for the motion to pass.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by pcurran:

The reference to Appendix B is to the Standing Rules (where there's a complicated table based on Robert's Rules of Order) and not to the Process Document.

So - I see no need to make a change here...

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by heathervc:

No changes are needed to the EC Standing Rules at this time.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Comment created by jpampuch:

I don't see any indication that any changes are required, and as a result, this issue can be closed.

apastsya commented 10 years ago

Issue was closed with resolution "Works as designed"