Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results to date +++ EC Voting Rules
I vote disapprove on the matter "The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an
EC member with cause."
EC confirms a member and only EC should have the power to suspend one of the
members voting rights with cause.
Also, a majority should be tallied with all the members of EC in the denominator
regardless of whether there are abstentions or not.
-ajay
On 2/7/2005 11:47 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> 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 EC membership be reflected in the denominator of
> electronic ballots
>
> Can EC voting privileges be suspended for cause
>
> Can the time period for an electronic ballot be extended
>
> How are votes tallied for P&P revision ballots
>
> Members present voting as denominator vs members not present
>
> 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 DIS YES
>
> 15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
>
> 16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
>
> ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
>
> TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
>
> total: -13- -05- -00- -00-
>
>
> Ballot Comments:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Sun 1/9/2005
> 12:24 AM
>
> 1. The section number in the July P&P is 7.1.4.
>
> 2. Use gender neutral phrasing wherever possible.
>
> 3. Per yesterday's discussion, there was concensus it would be best to
> clearly state in one place that only voting members are counted in all
> votes, and this was a good place.
>
> 4. There are multiple requirements that are subject to exception and
> others that are not.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I believe the change to 7.1.4 should read:
>
>
>
> "Only members of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the
> numerator or denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any
> EC vote. The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with
> cause. Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in
> addition subject to the following provisions. EC votes are by simple
> majority. The Chair may only vote if the vote will change the outcome.
> A quorum is at least one-half of the EC voting members."
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jerry1upton@aol.com Fri
> 1/7/2005 11:55 PM
>
> Disapprove.
>
> I do not agree the following addition to the P&P.
>
>
>
> "The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause."
>
>
>
> There is no defintion of "cause."
>
> If an EC member's voting rights are suspended for cause, it should be
> done by a vote of the EC.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> pat_thaler@agilent.com Mon
> 1/10/2005 8:53 PM
>
> Disapprove,
>
> The primary issue is the suspension for cause addition to 7.1.7. It is
> unnecessary and invites trouble. If the LMSC chair ever took such an
> action the chair would be at risk of getting sued. In the case of
> working group chairs it is giving the LMSC chair an ability to overturn
> the working group's election of chair. So even if the suspended member
> didn't choose to sue, the working group might. I also find it difficult
> to believe that there will be a case where there was strong enough
> evidence of cause to take this action. If it is absolutely clear that
> there was extreme misbehavior, the member could probably be convinced to
> resign. Therefore I don't think we should make this addition. If there
> is such a provision added, it should require a written complaint to the
> executive committee and a vote by a supermajority of the Exec.
>
>
>
> 7.1.7 Are abstentions counted in the denominator is listed as an issue.
> While I believe that is usually what is meant by a "simple majority" is
> Yes greater than No, but I'm not sure everyone will agree. I have looked
> in a number of sources and the definition is hard to come by so if we
> are going to use it we should include "(i.e. more members voting yes
> than voting no)". Shouldn't this stated more explicitly? By the way, if
> we are going to use this term than we could use the term "absolute
> majority" for what our email ballots require (an absolute majority
> requires the affirmative vote of more than half the members).
>
>
>
> 7.1.7.2.1 I don't see a compelling reason for this change. There has
> been at least one instance where we did extend a ballot due to poor
> turnout. Not allowing extension could leave us in a difficult postion if
> a ballot failed due to being sent out at a bad time. For example, what
> if there is an urgent motion to resolve a logistical problem with an
> upcoming meeting and it fails due to lack of participation? Is there a
> method to move to reconsider? Can a member who didn't vote be considered
> to have voted with the prevailing side (since not voting and voting No
> have the same effect) and thus be qualified to move to reconsider?
> Instead of having to do this, I suggest that we leave it in the
> judgement of the chair or the chair's designee to determine whether to
> extend a ballot that has failed due to lack of participation. This
> comment is also a reason for my disapprove.
>
>
>
> 7.1.6.5 overlaps the text being balloted on P&P update and doesn't match
> what was circulated in that ballot. Please remove it from this ballot
> and handle the changes to the section in the P&P ballot. Editiorial
> non-binding comment: Here Executive Committee has been left fully
> spelled out where in other sections you replaced it with EC and in the
> new text you have "Committee member" without Executive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Editorial comments:
>
> 7.1.7, it appears you have "majority majority".
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM]
> Wed 1/12/2005 7:43 AM
>
> Again, 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.
>
> Comments:
>
> 1) 7.1.7 "The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with
> cause."
>
> This is not acceptable. I would be slightly (but not much) less
> concerned if it was just those EC members that he appointed whose voting
> rights he/she could suspend, but definitely not in the case of EC
> members that represent a constituency.
>
> The appropriate course of action to deal with any such situation would
> seem to be a vote of the EC, not unilateral action by the Chair.
> Similarly, the "recommendation" alluded to in 7.1.7.1 would need to be
> the result of an EC vote.
>
> 2) 7.1.7.2.1 "Maximum advance notice is encouraged for all ballots on
> urgent matters."
>
> This is an interesting piece of nonsense. If the matter is urgent, then
> presumably there is no additional notice that could have been given. If
> there is "maximum" time available (maximum being the interval between EC
> meetings), then clearly the matter is not urgent. Strike the sentence or
> replace it with something that makes sense.
>
> Actually the preceding sentence:
>
> "The minimum duration of an electronic ballot shall be 10 days unless
> the matter is urgent and requires resolution in less time."
>
> isn't much better; in other words, "The duration is 10 days except when
> its shorter" which says nothing at all, least of all who makes the
> decision on what the duration might be. Again, strike or replace with
> something more sensible, like (for example): "The Chair or Vice Chair
> determines the period of the ballot; this will normally be 10 days, but
> may be less under exceptional circumstances, such as the need to resolve
> an urgent matter."
>
> We probably also need to encode the rule that we have already applied a
> number of times, namely, that if all voters have responded the ballot
> can close early. How about adding:
>
> "Where the matter to be resolved is urgent, the Chair or Vice Chair may
> determine that the ballot has closed once all voting members of the EC
> have cast their vote. This option can only be used if it was so stated
> at the start of the ballot."
>
> The final sentence is clearly necessary, as in a normal ballot with a
> fixed closing date, voters have the option of changing their vote at any
> point up to the stated closing date.
>
>
>
>
> 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.