| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Mat, My vote was DISAPPROVE per the email I
sent below: From:
owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stuart J. Kerry Matt, 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”. / Stuart From:
owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On
Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) 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 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 14 15 16 ---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++--- TOTALS
DNV DIS APP
ABS total:
-09- -07- -01- -00- Ballot Comments: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Senior
Member Technical Staff BAE
SYSTEMS, CNIR Office:
+1 973.633.6344 email:
matthew.sherman@baesystems.com |