With all due respect, you are suggesting a process exactly OPPOSITE
of what I described in my recent messages. You are proposing that
people send you POSITIVE votes, rather than NEGATIVE votes (ie,
comments in opposition to the given proposal).
This process has NOT worked (nay, NEVER WORKED) in the past.
We would be fools to ignore our multi-year history and think
(for whatever reason( it will work now.
I believe the entire PWG should consider how such critical
processes such as "Last Call" (or whatever you call it) are
No matter whether "positive" or "negative" voting is used,
all such comments should be PUBLIC and not private to the
chairperson, IMHO. Does others agree or disagree with this
Would others on the DL please state their views on which kind
of voting process you think would be suitable for the PWG?
> From: Lloyd Young@LEXMARK on 07/06/99 03:27 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Final call on Printer MIB changes
> Feeding off Jay's last e-mail, here is the process we will follow for the
> chIPP and Media Path alert changes:
> 1. Tom (or Ira) and Harry should submit the exact wording to be considered for
> chIPP and Media Path alert changes respectively. It is OK to reference a
> previous e-mail that contains the exact wording.
> 2. After the exact wording is submitted, I will publish a cut-off date for
> working group members to reply with their review comments and/or approval for
> the changes. In other words, you must reply for your vote to be counted as
> approving the change. Silence will be counted as a vote against the change.
> 3. By the cut-off date, I must get enough approval replies that in my opinion
> constitute a consensus from the working group for the change to be incorporated.
> Lloyd Young
> Manager, Alliances and Complementary Project Development
> Consumer Printer Division Lexmark International, Inc.
> Dept. C88M/Bldg. 005-1 740 New Circle Road NW
> email: firstname.lastname@example.org Lexington, KY 40550-0001
> Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (630) 982-4032