| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Dear EC members,
This ballot closes on Tuesday 2/8 one minute before the stroke of midnight (EST)! Below you will see the current status of the ballot. If you have not already done so, please take the time to consider the ballot and vote. As a reminder the scope of the ballot is as follows:
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
If you are dissatisfied with how we currently conduct business in any of these areas, now is the time to voice your opinion! Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting below.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Voters DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided?
---------------------------------------------------------
00 Paul Nikolich DNV
01 Mat Sherman DNV
02 Pat Thaler DIS YES
03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
04 Bob O'Hara DNV
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree DIS YES
07 Bob Grow DIS YES
08 Stuart Kerry DNV
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks DNV
11 Mike Takefman DNV
12 Mike Lynch DNV
13 Steve Shellhammer DNV
14 Jerry Upton DNV
15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -13- -04- -00- -00-
Ballot Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Sun 1/9/2005 12:24 AM
Disapprove
The sentence added at the end of 7.1.4.2.1 is unnecessarily restrictive. As written, this could be interpreted to restrict my ability to bring something before the EC as an individual member of the EC. It should only apply to matters advanced to the EC by WG action. How about:
"Numerical vote tallies must be taken on all items forwarded by the Working Group to the EC."
or
"Numerical vote tallies must be taken on all Working Group business required by these P&P to be approved by the EC."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pat_thaler@agilent.com Mon 1/10/2005 8:53 PM
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.
Editorial comments:
7.1.7, it appears you have "majority majority".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM] Wed 1/12/2005 7:43 AM
I also vote disapprove, and agree with at least the majority of Pat's comments below.
I will try to provide my own comments after the January interims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Mon 2/7/2005 6:58 AM
Disapprove.
The rationale for this ballot states that the changes address (among other things):
Must the full WG membership be reflected in the denominator of electronic ballots
Rules for gaining, losing, and maintaining membership
Neither of these issues are addressed in any aspect by the changes presented for ballot.
In particular, the section on gaining and losing voting membership is currently worse than it ever was (if that is possible!). For example:
- First para of 7.2.3.1: "Participation is defined as at least 75% presence at a meeting." So apparently, I can show up for 75% of one morning meeting during a session and I have achieved participation. Various other misapplications of session/meeting terminology there.
- "7.2.3.2 Retention Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary meetings." Again, it seems as if I only have to show up at 2 meetings during one session to achieve retention.
- 7.2.3.3 Loss: We seem to have lost the requirement to meet financial obligations (unless it has been moved elsewhere?).
- Widespread confusion between meeting and session in this section, with consequent ambiguity.
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.