How to resolve differences between WG co-chairs for EC voting

[palderman]

This issue assumes that the proposed changes in Charter are adopted and each working group (WG) has one vote. If WG co-chairs differ in their opinions on how to vote for a given issue under consideration by the Executive Committee (EC), how should those differences be resolved?

For an odd number of co-chairs one could go with the majority opinion, but for even numbered co-chairs that strategy would not work. In that case, do they cancel each other out creating a de facto abstention?

I suppose for now it would be left up to the WG chairs to decide how to resolve things.

Perhaps some clarifying verbiage could be added to the charter?

[platipodium]

Side fact: The German federal system has a similar political problem: state party coalition disagreement leads to blockage of voting for laws that require majority of "yes" on the national council of states.

What does this mean for us? If at all possible avoid blockage and find a mechanism for a clear no/yes propagating upward from the WG to the EC