[Foundation-l] WMF resolution on access to non-public data passed

Ray Saintonge saintonge at telus.net
Tue May 1 14:59:49 UTC 2007

Florence Devouard wrote:

>Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>>"Passed with 6 support votes and 1 abstention,"
>>Can we know who refused and perhaps her/his reasons? :) or that would be 
>Jimbo did not vote (it is not a blank vote where he refused to take a 
>position, it is that he did not come to vote).
>You may ask him, but I can pretty much (say 99%) affirm that you should 
>not read anything special in the abstention (except "I was busy with 
>other things and did not vote in time. But I am fully in agreement with 
>the resolution").
>It is frequent that some resolutions fail to get 100% of vote expressed.
>To avoid blocking the decision making process, we even voted this 
>resolution over a year ago: 
>Now, thanks for asking the question, because I just realised "abstain" 
>with "did not vote" were mixed under a unique description "abstain". 
>Which is not correct as in one case a vote is given, in the other, no 
>vote is given. The meaning is not the same. I will go through all the 
>resolutions to check and correct this.
"Did not vote" would be ambiguous.  The proper distinction should be 
between "abstain" and "absent".  "Absent" in particular states that the 
person was not there, and could not participate in the vote even if he 
wanted to.

There is a grammatical error in the Consent resolution procedure cited 
above.  "Can not" in two words should probably be "cannot" in one word.  
Having it in two words would have the effect of permitting a negative vote.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list