[iaufwg] Call for vote on editorial issue

[Mark Calabretta]

On Thu 2008/06/26 11:51:09 -0400, William Pence wrote
in a message to: IAU-FWG <iaufwg at nrao.edu>

Dear Bill,

>Mark's stated reason for wanting to include this clause is that it is 
>useful to explain one thing by pointing out the distinction with another.

As part of my original text, the status quo is to leave the clause in,
no substantive reason having been given for removing it.  Rob basically
said "Perhaps simply excise...", a throw-away comment that you latched
onto.  Eric appeared to be satisfied with a rewording.  The discussion
concluded with this rewording, not with removal of the clause.

>I prefer this because I think adding the clause would confuse most 
>readers of document who have no experience with random groups or the 
>PTYPEn random parameters.

But finally the real reason emerges; you removed the clause, Bill,
because YOU don't like it.  Why hide behind Rob and Eric?  Do they
feel as strongly about it as you obviously do?  Removing it is also
consistent with your previous agenda of deprecating random groups.  It's
hardly the impartial stance expected of an FWG chairman, now hopelessly
entangled with the quite separate role of editorship of the standard.

So, rather than simply asking whether anyone intends to vote against
the standard on the basis of this issue, which you have caused to be
blown out of all proportion, we now have to resort to a "procedural"
vote.  A little over the top isn't it?  I thought you were trying to
expedite matters.

And I also thought that you were trying to demonstrate to the higher-
ups that the FWG had risen above petty squabbles.

In any case, a procedural vote is not applicable in this instance.  The
IAUFWG voting rules state:

  2. Business or Procedural Issues

     When the IAU FITS Working Group considers issues that are related
     to the internal business or procedural workings of the FWG itself,
     it is not necessary to first hold a public comment period or call
     for votes by the regional FITS committees as is required when
     considering issues related to the FITS Standard.  [...]

Therefore, as this matter relates to the FITS standard, it cannot be
the subject of a procedural vote.  There is no ambiguity.  The correct
course of action is clearly specified:

  Final IAU FWG Vote
     [...]

     Before calling for a vote, the chairman of the FWG will first
     conduct a confidential poll of the FWG members.  If any of the
     members are considering a 'No' vote, or if any member actually
     votes 'No' without previously informing the chairman, then the
     voting process will be suspended for up to 6 months to try to
     negotiate a compromise that will lead to a unanimous vote in
     favor of the proposal.  This mandatory delay period is designed
     to ensure that minority opinions are adequately considered and
     is in keeping with the tradition within the FITS community of
     striving to reach unanimous consent on important issues.  If an
     acceptable compromise is not achieved within 6 months, then the
     vote of the FWG may proceed. 

     [...]

Because you, the chairman, are the main antagonist in this issue and
have now invested so much of your prestige into it, I must call on you
to play strictly by the rules as written, and not, as chairman,
attempt to change them to suit your own purposes as editor of the
standard.  Accordingly, you should now be asking whether anyone
intends to vote against the current draft of the standard and taking
action in response to that.

Regards, Mark