RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
I agree with Geoff's position here.
However, I would also vote against such a move for reasons of priority.
While we remain in a situation where our current P&P fail to even
adequately identify our membership rules, I will vote against any
attempts to add to our list of pending rules changes.
Also, before we start raising the possibility of sanctions, let us
explore other possibilities, such as the suggestion Roger made a while
back, to track the progress of Email ballots on the Web, so that we can
easily see what ballots are outstanding and whether our vote has been
registered.
Regards,
Tony
At 21:42 31/07/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Frankly,
I m with Paul. My experience is many people don t comment unless
they have to. If something has too many flaws to count, then I can
accept a comment which says so, and perhaps details two or three big
ones. And the response can be rough without a specific
solution. So I don t accept it is purely a question of
formatting. Unless you hold a stick over their heads some people
simply won t make time to participate. I think Paul s suggestion
might require some refinement. But I think we want to put some
teeth into the rules concerning ballot responses. We have it on the
WG level. We should have something on the EC level.
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
Vice
Chair, IEEE 802
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O
[mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:30 PM
To: Geoff Thompson; Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
Paul, I m with Geoff on
this one. For some issues, there are so many things wrong that
writing out comments on all of those is a non-productive process, and DNV
is the reasonable alternative.
If you want to get better
return rates on ballots you need to spend more time up front on crafting
the text being balloted and responding to discussion comments.
Rewriting a document by ballot comments is a very inefficient process and
should be avoided at all cost. Circulation of drafts for comments
and responding to inputs received is more efficient and less redundant,
prior to going for a ballot. Ballots where most folks can vote
Approve without comments always get good returns.
Thanx,
Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:43 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
Paul-
At 12:16 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC members,
Between the March 2003 and July 2003 plenary
sessions the EC had 7 electronic ballots (the rules ballots are not
counted in these stats), giving a total of 7*13=91 vote 'opportunities',
19 of which were DNVs. Almost 21% of the vote opportunities were
not utilized. We can do better than this. I think a 90%
return rate is a reasonable goal. Please cast your vote during
email ballots, it is your responsibility to your WG/TAG and the
LMSC.
Addtionally, at the Novebmer plenary session, I
plan to request that the EC to empower me to suspend the EC email ballot
voting rights of any member who does not cast a vote in 2 out of the last
3 email ballots.
I assert that any action by you to do so would infringe my right to vote
DISAPPROVE by inaction.
We have DNV in the denominator for a reason.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
Geoff
Regards,
Tony