Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
Title: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
Matt,
I'm voting
disapprove.
The issues list at
the front of this ballot is
-
Are abstentions counted in the denominator when tallying
votes
-
Must the full WG membership be reflected in the denominator of
electronic ballots
-
Numerical vote tallies are required for all matters brought
before the EC
-
Level of approval required for procedural votes
-
Directed Positions for Procedural Issues
-
Rules for gaining, losing, and maintaining
membership
1 is already clear
in the existing text and there is no change to address it.
-----------The
following issue is the reason for my disapprove.
None of the changes
address 2 and 2 doesn't accurately state the problem. The denominator to be used
is clear for the pass percentage in the existing text. There is a problem
in the existing text in that the entire text about the required Yea vs. Nay and
participation percentages to pass appears to apply only to a Working Group
Confirmation letter ballot. It appears in a paragraph about forwarding a draft
or revised standard and it says "Working Group Confirmation letter ballot". No
requirements are stated for "other matters" decided by a letter ballot. The
original section only dealt with draft balloting and when we modified it to add
other matters we did a poor job. The text about the options for a
ballot containing three choices is only appropriate to draft ballots. A Do Not
Approve on a motion sent to the working group by email shouldn't require
comments since it wouldn't require comments during a meeting and an abstention
shouldn't require a reason. I suggest we clean this up by first establishing
short names for the two kinds of letter ballot: forwarding letter ballot and
motion letter ballot. Then always use letter ballot, forwarding letter
ballot, or motion letter ballot when stating a requirement so it is
clear where it applies.
For a motion letter
ballot, should it always require 75% to pass or should it be 50% for procedural
like a meeting vote? - I could make arguments for either way but I lean
toward 50% for procedural. What should be the participation requirement? Since
an interim requires a 50% quorum as does a forwarding letter ballot, 50% is
reasonable.
---------------------------
6 isn't addressed
and while there have changes suggested in the past for our current rules, I'm
not aware of any consensus on a change to them. If we do try such a change would
be best handled as a separate ballot since it will probably be
controversial.
I agree that Bob's
wording is better for the change to 7.2.4.2.1.
There still seems to
be a discrepancy between the description of handling procedural matters in the
P&P and actual practice in the working groups.
7.2.4.1: The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural
issues.
7.2.4.2.1 as
modified: Procedural matters
put by the Chair to the group may be decided by a majority
vote.
But what happens in
the Working Groups (at least in 802.3) is that people make motions that the
chair classifies as procedural or technical and then we vote on them. The chair
isn't putting the matter to the group; the mover is. Perhaps you could say that
in letting the motion go to vote rather than deciding it, the chair is choosing
to put it to the group. I would prefer that we make that clear in 7.2.4.1 by
modifying it to:
The Chair of the
Working Group may decide procedural issues or may put them to a vote of the
Working Group.
9.3 The added
sentence should be moved to the prior paragraph (which is the one that calls out
the 75% requirement). The new sentence also seems somewhat contradictory since
the prior text says 75% required to pass per subclause 7.2.4.2.1 which
only applies to technical. I suggest:
After a Working Group motion has been passed that
establishes the Working Group’s position, a
separate Directed Position motion is
required to make that Working Group Position a Directed
Position. Directed
Positions may be formed by the Working Group on both technical and procedural
matters but a Directed Position motion is always treated as a
technical motion requiring 75% approval to pass per subclause 7.2.4.2.1.
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Friday, 07 January, 2005 9:02
PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++
LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
Dear EC
members,
Attached you will find the
text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on
WG Voting
Rules. This ballot was approved at the Friday
November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that
presented at the meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are
as given in the attached ballot document.
Ballot Duration: 1/8/2005 - 2/8/2005 @ 11:59 PM
EST
WG/TAG chairs, please
distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
groups, and invite them to comment through
you.
Thanks &
Regards,
Mat
<<802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf>>
Matthew Sherman,
Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical
Staff
BAE SYSTEMS,
CNIR
Office: +1
973.633.6344
email:
matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
---------- This email is sent from
the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by
Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.