| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Folks, My prior e-mail on this ballot was
incorrect. Please ignore my last e-mail and use the resulted provided below as
a baseline. Thanks, Mat Dear EC members, This ballot is closed! Below you will see the
closing
status of the ballot. Please let me know if you see any errors. Thanks very much to everyone who took the time to
participate. Your participation is appreciated. I will continue to
collect comments if they include ‘+++ LMSC P&P
Revision Ballot Results to date +++ EC Voting Rules’ in
the title. Comment resolution will take
place during the previously posted telecoms times. I will provide recommended
resolutions the day before the telecoms when possible. Regards, Mat Voters
DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided? --------------------------------------------------------- 00 01 Mat Sherman DNV 02 Pat Thaler DIS YES 03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV 04 Bob O'Hara DIS YES 05 John Hawkins DNV 06 Tony Jeffree DIS YES 07 Bob Grow DIS YES 08 Stuart Kerry DIS YES 09 Bob Heile DNV 10 Roger Marks DIS YES 11 12 Mike Lynch DNV 13 Steve Shellhammer DIS YES 14 Jerry Upton DIS YES 15 Ajay Rajkumar DIS YES 16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++--- TOTALS DNV
DIS APP ABS total: -06-
-10- -01- -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 [ 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob O'Hara
[bob@airespace.com] Tue 2/8/2005 1:03 AM I am ready to vote approve,
but cannot. Please record my vote as "disapprove". I will be
willing to change my vote to approve, but only with the removal of
"removal of voting rights for cause" or enumeration of exactly what
causes are allowed to be used for removal of rights and how a determination of
fact is made that one or more cause is valid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shellhammer, Stephen J
[stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com] Tue 2/8/2005 11:39 PM I vote Disapprove. I agree with the others who
say that saying the Chair can suspend an EC member’s voting rights with
cause is inappropriate. I would accept that the EC could vote to remove an EC
member’s voting rights with cause, but not the chair all by himself. A
simple majority of the EC would be sufficient. The LMSC Chair
may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause. I know the following text
was not been modified; however, it needs to be. It does not explain what
“assign” means. And for that matter the sentence does not say
much. The process for approving the change is already described below. So it
is clear what it takes to pass, otherwise, it fails. Where does this middle of
the road “assign” come from? If it fails you can always submit a
modified change request, and try again. I would recommend deleting the
sentence. The Executive Committee
shall approve, assign, or fail to accept the proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart J. Kerry
[stuart@OK-BRIT.COM] Tue 2/8/2005 11:48 PM I vote Disapprove on similar
grounds to Steve and others on the item “The LMSC Chair may suspend
voting rights of an EC member with cause” and would accept,
“without a simple majority of the EC membership”. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajay Rajkumar
[ajayrajkumar@lucent.com] Wed 2/9/2005 12:12 AM 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger B. Marks
[r.b.marks@ieee.org] Wed 2/9/2005 12:22 AM Disapprove, with these
comments: *The statement in 7.1.7 that
"Voting in the EC is by simple majority" is subject to
interpretation. Robert's Rules says a majority is "more than half of the
votes cast, ignoring blanks." We should include this language, expanding
it for clarity to ""more than half of the votes cast, ignoring blanks
and abstentions." *The proposal in 7.1.7 that
"the Chair only votes if his vote can change the outcome of a vote"
would allow the Chair to vote Disapprove to block an otherwise successful
motion; for example, to turn an 8-7 winning margin to a 8-8 tie (which, by
Robert's Rules, would be a defeat). We don't need to hand the Chair this extra
power, and we don't benefit by putting the Chair in this awkward situation. We are better off leaving
the rule alone. *In 7.1.7,
"quorum" should be defined with the statement from Robert's Rules that
"The quorum refers to the number present, not to the number voting."
It's best to be explicit so we don't have to argue about these things in a
meeting. *7.1.7.2 says
"Provision shall be made for the LMSC membership to observe and comment on
EC electronic ballots." Since this provision has been regularly ignored by
the EC, it needs to be strengthened. I suggest "Provision shall be made
for the LMSC membership to observe and comment on Executive Committee
electronic ballots. For this purpose, an electronic mail distribution system
shall be implemented for EC balloting. Any individual shall be permitted to
subscribe to this distribution system and to access the archives. No vote or
comment shall be considered unless submitted though this distribution system." Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. |