<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">It sounds like maybe this should be formalized and put in as a clarification.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(Sorry for missing most of this discussion, I’ve been traveling a bit lately and neglecting my personal email.)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">d.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 19, 2016, at 07:32, David William Bitner <<a href="mailto:bitner@dbspatial.com" class="">bitner@dbspatial.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">In general for a consensus +1/-1 system, -1 is considered a veto. This is why I chose to vote +0 to indicate that I do not fully approve but did not want to stop the vote. By the consensus system, the two -1 votes should act as vetos. This committee has typically used +1/-1 but on a much more straight vote system, perhaps in the future to avoid confusion we should not use the +1/-1 nomenclature if this is not our intended outcome, but rather a more parliamentary yes/no so as to avoid confusion between the intention of both systems.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If we run our votes in a consensus manner, I would support a quorum rule for a vote as having an affirmative +0/+1 vote from greater than 50% of members with no dissenting votes. Under a parliamentary system, it would make more sense to have a quorum of 50% and a motion passing with a majority of those <i class="">who voted</i> supporting the vote. </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"></div><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>