RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on W G electronic voting
I approve
Regards,
Tony
At 00:42 06/06/2002 -0400, Matthew Sherman wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>The ballot still closes on June 8, 2002 @ 12 midnight EDT. That means there
>are 2 days left.
>
>The vote tally as of 6/5/02 is:
>
>00 Paul Nikolich DNV
>01 Geoff Thompson DIS
>02 Buzz Rigsbee DIS
>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 DIS
>10 Mike Takefman DIS
>11 Carl Stevenson DIS
>-------------------------------------------------------
> totals: 1 APP 6 DIS 0 ABS 5 DNV
>
>8 APPROVES (2/3 majority) required to PASS. Ballot is FAILING.
>
>
>Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting above. I did
>receive a couple of more votes yesterday, and my thanks goes out to those
>individuals. More importantly significant feedback has been received and a
>definite consensus seems to be forming. While this ballot may fail, I have
>high hopes for the comment resolution. A full list of the comments is
>attached below.
>
>There are still a few individuals that have not voted. Please let you
>voices be heard so I can include your opinions in the comment resolution
>process.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Mat
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Technology Consultant
>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] Tue 6/4/2002 3:35 PM
>
>
>Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Tue 6/4/2002 3:35 PM
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Like Buzz, I think Roger's comments make a lot of sense
>and I also vote DISAPPROVE, pending acceptable revisions.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com] Tue 6/4/2002 3:18 PM
>
>I think Roger has done an excellent job of proposing changes to
>address the concerns which have been expressed to date and which appear to
>be necessary to garner an affirmative vote on this matter, while carefully
>avoiding Bob Grow's slippery slope of the infinite change loop. I will vote
>Disapprove, with the same comments as Roger, and suggest that you might be
>wise to withdraw and redraft the motion on that basis to get this matter
>moving forward again. We DO all want to get past this one to get us back in
>synch with our rules.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Roger B. Marks [marks@boulder.nist.gov] Tue 6/4/2002 2:18 PM
>
>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 thirty days. For recirculation
>ballots, and for letter ballots not related to the submission of
>draft standards, the response time must be at least fifteen days, or
>ten days when conducted by electronic means."
>
>[I've tossed in a shorter time for recirculation ballots, since we
>don't define that elsewhere.]
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.4 ("The rights of the Working Group members include
>the following:"), change
>
>d) To vote by mail on drafts to be submitted to the Sponsor Ballot Group.
>
>to
>
>d) To vote in Working Group Letter Ballots.
>
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.3, change:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other
>than "lack of technical expertise."
>
>by inserting the words in brackets:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots [regarding draft standards] are not returned, or are returned
>with an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise."
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>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
> >
> >
> >
Regards,
Tony