|
Matt,
I
guess Carl's intention is to better mimic the RR process: first discuss the
motion, then, when there is no discussion, start voting. I belief that is a
much better approach than the immediate voting option.
Regards
---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent
Technologies
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the
Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528
(Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving
time)
FAX: +31 30 609
7556
e-mail:
vichayes@agere.com
Carl,
I agree it is better
to solicit input before making a motion. That is always true. But
even in a WG people sometimes come to the floor with a motion before it is
adequately socialized. The result is generally the same – failure of the
motion. So I don’t see what is different in that regard. The key
difference I see is the ability to amend a motion in response to criticism
from the floor. I think if that were fixed, then the process would be
much more useful. In my mind, perhaps the mover and seconder should be
able to retract the motion early if they see it will fail, and make in essence
an amended motion. What they would lose is time since they would need to
extend the response deadline. Regardless, because we have a quorum
requirement on e-mail votes (as with letter ballots in WG) I think we need to
require a response. If it were possible to take a vote without a quorum
(as we generally do on the floor), then I would be willing to do without
requiring a response.
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: Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:23
AM
To: Tony Jeffree;
Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com;
gthompso@nortelnetworks.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
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 ...
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tony
Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:49
AM
To:
mjsherman@research.att.com
Cc: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com;
gthompso@nortelnetworks.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: 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
|