|
All,
There is some confusion on this email thread
concerning the EC email vote stats. Remember, our votes on EC motions
(which I call 'email votes') are disctinct from 'P&P email
ballots'. My observation on the 21% DNV
rate and suggestion to require EC members cast a yes/no/abstain
vote on 2 out of the last 3 'email votes' in order to retain their right to
vote on 'email votes' is restricted exclusively to the email votes.
My suggestion on the requiring a 2 out of 3 return rate is based on applying the
same requirement we impose on WG letter ballots (5.1.3.3 Loss) to email
votes.
Thanks for the feedback.
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 7:23
AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email vote
statistics
I
agree with Geoff, Buzz, and Tony.
I
like the idea of tracking e-mail ballots, and maybe even voting, on the
web.
With
no disrespect to Mat, who I know is, and has been, working hard
on
updates/corrections to the P&P, I also agree with Buzz ... before
something
goes
to ballot, I think it should be socialized and tweaked into some form
of
consensus, so that when it does go to ballot it stands a good chance
of
passing. I recognize that it's probably no easier to get/resolve
comments
before a ballot than during one, but at least it would save the
frustration
of
having a seemingly never-ending series of ballots that fail, only to
have
to
re-work things and try again ...
Carl
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
|