RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
Paul, I think anytime you're consistently getting better than a 60% response rate you're doing very well indeed, and can be assured that your decision processes are not getting hi-jacked by a minority interest. The first few comments returned usually define the opinion spread and highlight the sensitive issues, and anyone with a strong sentiment is likely to lay it out there. If as Matt suggests the motion maker had the opportunity to spot the diversions, withdraw the motion to make some midcourse corrections and then reissue the improved version, we could certainly converge to an agreeable end much more efficiently. But this is what a pre-ballot comment circulation period usually accomplishes with the result that the ballot goes off without mostly approve on the first round. So my recommendation would be that we try to formalize the pre-ballot comment collection period. When agreeable text is arrived at, then is when you go for the ballot.
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: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:38 PM
To: Bill Quackenbush; Bob O'Hara
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
All,
The request to the EC to 'empower the chair' will come in the form of a P&P
change request in November, altough it is becoming evident from this email
thread that it would probably not receive approval. Good discussion though.
I note that no one commented on the 80% response rate on the email votes.
I'm not sure how to interpret that--it is an adequate response rate or not?
My intent on the threat of suspending the EC email voting rights was to give
the chair a motivational tool to encourage all EC voters (that are aware an
email motion is open) to cast a vote. Why? It is my opinion that it is an
EC member's obligation to cast a vote on a motion. We are a small group.
Every vote and every opinion is important to our decision making process and
to the LMSC. Therefore, I want to encourage maximum participation.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Quackenbush" <billq@attglobal.net>
To: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
>
> All,
>
> There is in my view a very important reason why the requirements for a
> motion to be approved by eballot are different from the requirements for
> a motion to be approved during an EC (in person) meeting.
>
> During an EC (in person) meeting, almost every voting member of the EC
> is present, they are all (hopefully) paying attention and their vote can
> be determined by visual inspection. However, there is no assurance
> during an eballot that anyone except those who vote ever saw the ballot.
> If eballot approval was determined as a majority of those voting
> "approve" or "disapprove", then it would be possible for a motion to
> pass an eballot with ONE "approve" vote and no other votes because no
> one else saw the eballot. Such a possibility is simply NOT acceptable
>
> Thanks,
>
> wlq
>
> > Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that Paul has the authority to disenfranchise an EC
> > member, in this manner. Nor does the EC have the power to give him
> > this authority. This would require a change to the P&P. If you
> > disagree, please cite the text in our P&P that allows him this power
> > or allows us to grant him this power.
> >
> > Geoff is correct that the P&P explicitly makes a non-return by an EC
> > member equivalent to a "NO" vote. From 3.4.2.1:
> > "The affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Executive
> > Committee with voting rights is required for an electronic ballot to
> > pass except when specified otherwise by these P&P."
> >
> > -Bob
> >