|
When we initially
considered doing email votes, I suggested that there be a period when a proposed
motion was sent to the reflector and discussed followed by posting the actual
motion and a voting period. This would be a better model of the way one votes at
meetings. There may have been concern that such a process would make the ballot
period too long.
Pat
Vic,
I agree completely
that this is a better approach. In fact, perhaps we should require a 5
day notice on a motion, with the actual voting period limited to 10 days after
the 5 days. During the 5 days the mover could make modifications in
their motion in response to criticism or even decide not to pursue the
motion. I’m very open to ways to improve the process. What I can’t
agree with is that we should expect less of EC members than we do of WG
members. There should be some requirement to respond to Email
ballots.
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: Hayes, Vic
(Vic) [mailto:vichayes@agere.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 8:29
AM
To: Sherman,Matthew J
(Matthew); Stevenson, Carl R (Carl); tony@jeffree.co.uk
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 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.
---------------
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
-----Original
Message-----
From:
mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:20
PM
To:
carlstevenson@agere.com; tony@jeffree.co.uk
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
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
|