[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Fab Tillier]

Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26

> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> 
>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication
>>> that this bylaw change was half baked.
>> 
>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the
>> location.  It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to
>> change the by-laws with a single vote.
> 
> 
> To be clear, the process document states:
> 
>     For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple
>     majority of those present and eligible to vote.
> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to
> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting to
> define that phrase.  So even though the above sentence looks like a circular
> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google search
> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions).
> 
> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain from
> commenting further.

If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them.  We should not however reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going forward.  Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good.

-Fab