Yes, I meant to have a second round because there was less than 100%
voting. From the procedures:
Each member of ISO 639/JAC has one vote.
Voting is obligatory.
A vote must be unanimous for approval of an item. If there are
abstentions, it shall not be considered unanimous
If a unanimous vote cannot be reached on an item, a second vote will
be conducted following discussion.
At least five positive votes are required to pass on the second
Then it says later:
"Failure to vote is considered an abstention (and thus a unanimous ballot
cannot be reached with an abstention)."
This is from our procedures, based on Annex A of the standard:
There was a case in the past before Gerhard joined when we had Mr.
Vervoorn on the committee who did not respond to the voting. In those
cases I did conduct a second ballot.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-1] Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
> My original proposal was to NOT have a second ballot for "Sichuan Yi", since
> that has been approved by 100 % of the voting members that voted, and that I
> don't expect that percentage to change in a second ballot.
> A second ballot would be needed for "Yi languages (other)" only, which did
> not receive 100 %. I have invited JAC members to discuss this item. I do NOT
> see any need to have another discussion of "Sichuan Yi".
> In other words: If the JAC approves these procedures, the "important" ballot
> is finished, and we can add "Sichuan Yi" to our list.
> I am not quite sure how to interpret Rebecca's message: Do you find a need
> for a formal second ballot of "Sichuan Yi"? If so, I shall gladly prepare
> that immediately; I just thought it would be sufficient to do this by
> "negative ballot": "if you don't say anything, you haven't changed your
> I will obviously not let the "Yi languages (other)" issue delay the "Sichuan
> Yi" issue.
> Best regards,
> Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Solfallsveien 31
> NO-1430 Ås, Norway
> tel: +47 64963684 & +47 64944233
> mob: +47 90145563
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: 2. oktober 2002 21:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Jean-Arthur Creff -- and Yi
> My comments were mainly about procedure and sticking to what our document
> says we need to follow.
> Can you submit the evidence for the Yi languages (other) for the record?
> It would be good to document that.
> I guess Michael is concerned about holding this up any further. If
> necessary to have further discussion we could do 2 separate votes, one on
> Sichuan Yi and the other on Yi languages (other). I am also interested in
> finishing this quickly, since we are working on a new edition of the MARC
> codes and would like to include these in that document if they are