RE: [802SEC] comments on WG electronic voting
Roger,
Thanks for the inputs. I look forward to your formal vote after your WG
reviews.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
PTSM - Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:39 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] comments on WG electronic voting
Mat,
I'm not ready to cast a formal ballot, since I'm still reviewing my
comments with my members. However, in response to your cajoling, I'm
sending along my current views.
The problem, as I see it, is that WGs sometimes need to make quick
decisions outside of meetings.
The rules currently provide two type of voting in WGs: (1) Voting at
Meetings, and (2) Voting by Letter Ballot. The proposed rules change
tries to develop the electronic voting procedure as an extension of
"Voting at Meetings". I see a lot of problems with this, mainly
related to the formation and amendment of the motion. It's hard to
extend the checks and balances from the meeting room to the email
reflector.
Instead, I think we should address the issue by modifying the second
voting alternative: the Letter Ballot. We understand Letter Ballots,
and the rules to support them already exist. Furthermore, the current
rules already distinguish between two kinds of Letter Ballots: (a)
submitting a draft to Sponsor Ballot, and (b) "other matters"... "at
the discretion of the Working Group Chair". So we can simply and
effectively address the problem at hand simply by specifying a
different duration for the "other matters".
My current suggestion is simply to change:
"The letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the
time of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot."
to the following:
"For a decision to submit a draft to the Sponsor Ballot Group, the
letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the time
of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot. The
letter ballot may also be conducted by electronic means; in this
case, the response time is reduced to 30 days. For recirculation
ballots, and for letter ballots not related to the submission of
draft standards, the response time must be at least ten days."
[I've tossed in a shorter time for recirculation ballots, since we
don't define that elsewhere.]
I would also suggest that the rules on loss of membership due to
failure to return Letter Ballots be limited to Letter Ballots on
drafts, excluding those on "other matters".
Roger
>Hello again,
>
>Well as of today, I have recieved no further comment on this ballot (since
>my last reminder). That means 9 of the 12 voting members of the SEC have
>not voted yet. There are only 9 more days till the ballot closes. Please
>express your opinions one way or the other on this ballot.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mat
>
>Matthew Sherman
>PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:21 AM
>To: 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
>Cc: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org'; 'Geoff Thompson'
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on W
>G electronic voting
>
>
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>Per Paul's request, I will be tabulating the results of this Ballot, and
>working to "get out the vote". The vote formally closes at June 8, 2002 12
>midnight EDT. We still have about 3 weeks, but we only have only had 3
>people formally vote to date. Here is the current vote Talley:
>
>Vote Talley as of 5/14/02
>
>00 Paul Nikolich DNV
>01 Geoff Thompson DIS
>02 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
>03 Bob O'Hara DIS
>04 Bill Quackenbush DNV
>05 Tony Jeffree DNV
>06 Bob Grow APP
>07 Stuart Kerry DNV
>08 Bob Heile DNV
>09 Roger Marks DNV
>10 Mike Takefman DNV
>11 Carl Stevenson DNV
> total:
>
>6 APPROVES required to PASS. Ballot Currently FAILING ( 1 APP, 2 DIS, 9
>DNV, 0 ABS)
>
>
>Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting above. Note
that
>I was a little unsure from the comments if Mike had formally voted yet or
>not, but for now I have him as not voting.
>
>We had some lively discussion on this ballot earlier on. A synopsis of the
>comments to date is provided below. However there has been no real
activity
>on this ballot recently. If people have made up their minds, I encourage
>them to express a formal vote. If not, I encourage them to express their
>concerns so that others may consider them, and we may continue to debate
the
>issue during the remaining 3 weeks.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>==========================================================================
>Summary of comments to date:
>
>Ballot Comments:
>
>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Mon 4/1/2002 9:41 AM
>
>5.1.4.2.1 Voting on technical motions at Meeting
>...
>The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. ...
>
>This should be changed to "The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings
>or on electronic votes." OR
>"The Working Group Chair may vote on all motions" OR
>some wording with the same effect
>
>I will vote approve if the wording is improved.
>
>If others do not feel the original wording restricts the chair
>from voting on electronic motions I withdraw the comment and
>Approve.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 12:31 PM
>
>The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>
>That could be:
> 50% abstain
> 40% Approve
> 10% Disapprove
>And the measure would pass.
>I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>be decided in a meeting.
>
>If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>
>I vote DISAPPROVE until the following additions are made to the text
>to be changed:
>
>1) In an earlier email exchange I suggested that non-returned email
>ballots be considered exactly the same as non-returned letter
>ballots, i.e., that they negatively affect the non-balloter's voting
>status. Please change the first sentence in 5.1.3.3 to the
>following:
>
>"Membership may be lost if any two of the last three Working Group
>letter or email ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
>abstention other than "lack of technical expertise.""
>
>2) Contrary to Geoff's position, I would like to see a minimum return
>requirement as it is currently stated in 5.1.4.2.1, without requiring
>that non-returned ballots be considered negative votes. Counting
>non-returned ballots as anything at all makes absolutely no sense to
>me. It means that someone who is no longer participating, who has
>retired, who has moved into another area of work, possibly even
>someone who is dead, can affect the outcome of an electronic ballot
>simply by not replying. They can continue to do this until their
>voting status is lost as described in 5.1.3.3. Last I checked, the
>Daly's of Chicago were not running the LMSC.
>
>What I would like to see is a minimum abstention requirement, like
>that for sponsor ballots. Please add to 5.1.4.2.1 "Non-returned
>ballots on votes by electronic means are not counted as either yea,
>nea, or abstain. On votes by electronic means, a vote is not valid
>if more than 30% of the ballots returned are abstentions."
>
>3) I believe that the change to the title of section 5.1.4.2.1 has
>the unfortunate effect of limiting voting by electronic means to only
>technical matters. As such, it would prevent a WG from voting by
>electronic means on any procedural matters, such as sending liaison
>letters that were not available by the close of a meeting. Is this
>the intent of the rules change? If not, perhaps there should be a
>separate section on voting by electronic means, as there is for
>voting by letter ballot.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:11 PM
>
>Bob, for email balloting, I believe that "Lack of Time" is a real and valid
>reason for not voting on some of the issues. Would you consider allowing
>"other than "lack of technical expertise."" to change to "other than "lack
>of technical expertise" or "lack of time"", in your proposed text change?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>
>I would consider such an addition. However, I think that this would
require
>that we describe voting by electronic means in a section of its own, since
>there are now exceptions only for electronic ballots that do not apply to
>letter ballots.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:49 PM
>
>Bob, certainly once we open up balloting to electronic ballots I assume
that
>they could be used for purposes other than voting on document drafts. It
is
>for these other drafts that I would propose the change. The wording for
>voting on document drafts should be generalized to include electronic
>balloting so that we do not have to separately spell out what the rules for
>voting are electronically on those drafts, as distinct from voting in a
>letter ballot.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue 4/2/2002 8:28 PM
>
>WARNING!!! We are starting down the same "rat hole" that stopped any
change
>in 1999. As I recall, when we started hacking up the text to open the WG
>electronic ballot process for purposes other than electronic letter
ballots,
>every proposed alteration created additional conflicts with other
provisions
>in the rules, and approval decreased. I think most of the problems stemmed
>from conflicts on eballot periods, and lack of clarity as to how an
>electronic motion is made, seconded (?), etc. If we want to codify
>electronic WG motions and voting in the LMSC rules, I expect many more
>changes will be required than what has been proposed by the other Bob's
>below.
>
>I would recommend that we first legitimize our current electronic processes
>before trying again to enable and fine tune additional business via
>electronic means (i.e., make those other changes a separate rules change
>proposal). Personally, I need to get my taxes done before I spend any time
>revisiting the more complex proposals.
>
>Some comments:
>
>1. The addition of "technical" to the first line of 5.1.4.2 was to
>eliminate a conflict with other parts of the rules. The 75% threshold
>already in 5.1.4.2.1 was clearly only to apply to technical decisions.
>Reading all the rules with current text will show an inconsistency on the
>approval threshold for a procedural motion at a meeting.
>
>2. The essence of the proposed change is to allow electronic means for a
>letter ballot. (The added sentence to 5.1.4.2.2.) In that context, Bob
>O'Hara's change #1 is not necessary. It is a letter ballot if electronic
or
>written if we adopt the proposed change. This change was felt necessary
>because the word "postmark" implies a snail mail ballot process (and the
>different ballot period recognizes the improved delivery time of electronic
>means).
>
>3. The rules already allow the Working Group Chair discression to submit
>other matters to letter ballot (5.1.4.2.2). Bob Love, if you want anything
>other than an electronic letter ballot, we are heading down the "rat hole".
>Bob O'Hara, could we please make your #3 a seperate rule change effort for
a
>new section as you offer.
>
>4. Bob O'Hara and Geoff. I don't recall if "quorum" comments were part of
>the discussions three years ago. The proposed text makes no change to
>existing letter ballot thresholds (again, it only allows a letter ballot to
>be electronic). The proposed text will not do anything to change what is
>currently allowed other than: a) decrease the letter ballot period to 35
>days when conducted electronically, b) lower cost and resource barriers for
>submitting other matters to letter ballot.
>
>5. It is possible within WG rules to tighten things up (e.g., 802.3 rules
>include a 30% abstention threshold).
>
>6. Recent activities indicate that we need to improve our language on
>quorums. To that end, my preference would be a separate rules change for
>the WG quorum text. As part of that change, I would extract the quorum
>sentences from 5.1.4.2.1 into a new subsection 5.1.4.2.3 and work on them
>independent from enabling electronic letter ballots.
>
>Something about this change engenders scope creap. From the comments so
far
>we have desire to extend scope to: define electronic motions, change the
>definition of quorum, add an abstention threshold
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [pat_thaler@agilent.com] Wed 4/3/2002 2:56 PM
>
>1) The most urgent matter is to legitimize the Voting by Letter ballot
>provisions for progressing drafts.
>
>As such, I note that there is still a whole in that the text still does not
>recognize a shorter ballot period for recirculation. I would like to see a
>statement added to the paragraph like: "These times do not apply to
>recirculation ballots." or "Recirculation ballots must be at least 15 days
>for postal ballots and 10 days for email."
>
>If working out the details of non-letter ballot email votes takes more
time,
>then they should probably be split into separate rules change ballots.
>
>2) Procedural - according to the text here, procedural motions don't exist
>at all. The chair decides procedural matters. (see 5.1.4.1) This is
>different from the practice in many (all?) of the working groups which do
>vote on procedural matters. The usual working group practice of majority
>vote on procedural matters doesn't seem to be in the LMSC rules at all.
>
>I also think the particular example Bob O'Hara raises of sending a liaison
>letter would be a technical vote in most cases because our liaison letters
>often contain technical material such as advising another group of a
working
>group's opinion on a technical matter.
>
>I'm not sure what to do about procedural matters as some more minor ones
are
>decided by chairs but substantive ones like setting times and places for
>interim meetings and affirming agendas are done by working group votes. One
>way to handle this would be for the LMSC rules to make the LMSC rules a bit
>more flexible on this point changing the first line of 5.1.4.1 "Procedural
>matters may be decided by the Chair of the Working Group or by a vote of
the
>working group. The Working Group Chair decides which procedural matters
>should be voted upon using the guidance of the Working Group operating
>rules."
>
>3) When motions are conducted at a meeting, there is an opportunity for
>people to discuss their points of view on the strengths and weaknesses of a
>motion before voting. There is also the ability to adjust the motion based
>upon that discussion. If email voting is to produce decisions of equal
>quality, then there needs to be a provision for discussion. (This is part
of
>the rat hole, but it needs to be addressed or email votes should not be
>given an equal standing to meeting votes.)
>
>There isn't a Robert's Rules of Order for email motions so we need to
create
>at least a minimal structure for them.
>
>Add a paragraph to 5.1.4.2.1
>When it is necessary to conduct a vote on a technical motion by electronic
>means, then the following procedure shall be followed. The Working Group
>Chair or Vice Chair shall send a notice to the Working group to initiate a
>discussion period on the proposed motion. Discussion shall use a means that
>allows working group members to observe and comment upon the discussion. At
>the end of the discussion period, the Working Group Chair or a Vice Chair
>shall post the final motion and open the balloting period. Working Group
>operating rules should provide guidance on the length of the discussion and
>ballot periods.
>
>4) Abstentions - Working groups cover a large scope and not everyone feels
>able to have an opinion on everything. I hesitate to do something where an
>abstention equals a NO. If someone really doesn't have a clue, I don't want
>them to just cast a Yes vote because it is easy and they don't want to
>obstruct what they don't understand. Therefore, I prefer a separate limit
on
>percentage of abstentions over putting the abstentions into the calculation
>% Yes votes. I wish there were two kinds of abstain - one for "I don't care
>about or understand this area and never will" and one for "I'm not ready to
>vote on this yet because I am undecided but I expect to have a position
>later." Because a lot of the latter kind of abstention usually indicates
>that the vote is on shaky ground but the former doesn't.
>
>5) I don't see the relevance of the historical notes and I don't think one
>voter should be singled out as the cause of earlier non-passage.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/8/2002 2:21 PM
>
>I can agree with Bob's requests to separate the various issues into
>individual rules changes, if it is made absolutely clear that the current
>rule change proposal for voting by electronic means is as a substitution
>only for letter ballots on drafts. I want it very clear that voting by
>electronic means under this particular rule change is not for the conduct
or
>ordinary working group business, including the ratification of work done at
>interim meetings with no quorum, or the posting of any other motion than
the
>question to forward a WG draft to sponsor ballot with the requirement of
>technical comments to support a vote of "no". Any WG rules that are not
>consistent with this interpretation of the LMSC rules must be clearly
>indicated by the SEC to be invalid.
>
>I continue to vote DISAPPROVE until the clarifications above are included
in
>the rule change proposal or until it is made clear that the rule change is
>limited as I describe above and there is not yet any authority for the WGs
>to conduct general business electronically. I do not want a repeat of the
>debacle after the January 802.11 interim meeting.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Fri 5/10/2002 8:23 PM
>
>Please note my email of 4/2 about the scope creep in recommendations by
>other's commenting on this ballot; and support for independent rules change
>items to address some of those concerns (plus one of my own).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>=========================================================================
>Preballot Comments:
>
>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>
>a question from one of my people. What consitutes a quorum for an
>electronic vote (either motion or ballot).
>
>For example, this SEC rules change ballot marks a failure to vote
>as a vote against. Hence, one could argue there is no quorum requirement
>as all voters end up with either a no or whatever they actually responded
>with and 100% of the voters are counted.
>
>Another interpretation is similar to those of a meeting. Specifically
>the number of people who respond to the ballot as a yes or no or abstain
>must be greater than 50% of the voting members.
>
>
>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>
>Mike, I believe 50% of the eligible voters voting YES, NO, or ABSTAIN, is a
>quorum for electronic balloting. See the 802.5 Working Group electronic
>balloting rules I posted on the 802.17 reflector which explicitly specify
>that.
>
>
>Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>
>The quorom for an electonic ballot is that 50% of the working group voting
>members must respond YES, NO or ABSTAIN. This is exactly the same as a
>quorum for any WG meeting that is not held during a plenary session.
>
>
>Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>
>The confusing point was that your email indicated that
>for the current SEC motion a failure to vote was counted as a NO.
>I took a quick look at the rules and it is not clear to me why a
>fail to vote on an SEC motion is a no vote. Rather the rule 3.4.2.1
>appears to state that a majority of the voting SEC members must reply.
>
>
>Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>
>Mike, for SEC email ballots the eligible voters all have a very significant
>commitment to remain engaged and participate in the process. Therefore,
the
>SEC electronic balloting rules call for motions to pass with >50% of ALL
>ELIGIBLE VOTERS. As a consequence, not voting on an SEC electronic ballot
>is equivalent to casting a NO vote.
>
>Since the ballot group for any of the Working Groups is so much larger,
even
>getting 50% of the voters to respond is an effort. It would be a useless
>exercise to require Working Group e-mail ballots to have greater than 50%
of
>the voting members cast a YES vote.
>
>
>Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>
>The rules on voting for rules changes (3.6.5) require 2/3 approval or ALL
>voting members on the SEC. Therefore, if you do not vote, you are
>effectively counted as a negative:
>
>Approval ratio = approves/(negatives + abstain + did not vote).
>
>Also for electronic balloting (not concerned with a rules change) 3.4.2.1,
>you require a majority of eligible voting SEC members. Again, the approval
>ratio puts ALL members of the SEC in the denominator.
>
>Therefore a quorum for SEC email ballots is 100% of the SEC voting members.
>
>
>Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]
>
>I would like to suggest that a quorum for an electronic WG ballot should be
>50% of the voting membership of the WG. I suggest this because all of the
>voting members will have received the email announcing the particular
motion
>on which the vote is to take place. This means, to me, that all voting
>members are "present" and have heard the question placed before the WG,
just
>as if they were standing in the room at a face to face meeting.
>
>Getting the voters to respond is simple, the rule should state that failure
>to return any 2 out of 3 electronic ballots results in loss of voting
>membership. This addition helps the WG in two respects. First it
increases
>participation in the business of the WG. Second, it helps to rapidly prune
>the voting roster of inactive members, resulting in a lower number of
voting
>members being required to reach a quorum.
>
>
>Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]
>
>I agree with Bob's rationale, as stated below,
>with the understanding that the 50% is the
>total of those voting Yes, No, and Abstain.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:18 PM
>To: 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Sherman, Matthew'
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>WG electronic voting
>
>
>Geoff,
>
>FYI Mat and I have discussed this ballot and Mat has agreed to 'run this
>ballot'. This means he will: bug the SEC to return their ballot's on time,
>tally the votes, collect and collate the comments and supervise the comment
>resolution process.
>
>--Paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:31 PM
>To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>WG electronic voting
>
>
>DISAPPROVE
>
>The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>
>That could be:
> 50% abstain
> 40% Approve
> 10% Disapprove
>And the measure would pass.
>I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>be decided in a meeting.
>
>If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 07:04 AM 4/1/02 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>>Dear SEC members,
>>
>>Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change letter ballot on
>WG
>>Electronic Voting. (Note this is a resend of the March 17, 2002 letter
>>ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because we did not
> >officially approve it for distribution until last night. Other than
that
>it
>>is unchanged).
>>
>>Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the working group level.
>>
>>Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
>>
>>The ballot opens April 1, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12 midnight EDT
>>(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE
>>vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide email list as
>>well. WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG
>>members to comment through you.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>--Paul Nikolich
>>
>>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
>>email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>>cell: 857.205.0050
>>mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
>>
>>
>>