|
I repeat my opinion that the change to allow honest abstentions is an improvement. I think it may provide visibility into the difference between "approve because of lack of time or interest" and "approve because we read the draft". While I understand the point
of the rule as it was, I contend it failed to achieve the intended goal. Also worth considering is that the tools being used by some WGs provides for multiple abstention offerings, which has led some voters to think that these options are valid. I know at
least one voter who fell for this after reading the revised WG P&P...:-)
Ben
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org> on behalf of Law, David <dlaw@HPE.COM>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 7:10 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Loss of voting membership for failing to return ballots
Dear IEEE 802 EC,
Thank you for all the feedback, as the originator of these three items, please see my latest thoughts below.
Best regards,
David
-----
[1] Removal of the restriction that abstaining, other than for 'lack of expertise', does not count as returning a ballot, allowing any abstain to now count.
Version 20 of 'IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures'
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-19-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf, dated 18 March 2021, and prior versions back to version 1 dated 16 July 2010
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-01-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf, read:
Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.".
Version 21 of 'IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures'
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-21-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf dated 29 August 2021 up to the current version 23
https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-23-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf read:
A voting member that fails to return 2 of the last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote loses membership.
As a result, prior to 29 August 2021 not voting, or a vote of 'Abstain lack of time' would not count towards retaining voting rights. After that date, not voting would not count towards retaining voting rights, but a vote of 'Abstain lack of time' does count
towards retaining voting rights. As I do not believe this change was deliberate, I still would like to restore the text that states that abstention for other than 'lack of technical expertise' does not count towards retaining voting rights.
[2] Interpretation of '... last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote ...' text.
Based on the feedback received I now don’t believe there is a need for a change.
[3] If a 'doomed voter' that has failed to respond to the last 2 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote should lose their voting rights immediately.
I would personally be happy with the position that the Working Group Chair may choose if voting rights are removed at the 2-ballot or 3-ballot point, and I would choose the 3-ballot point as I do today. But as Bob notes, this can result, based on the rate at
which Working Group Letter Ballot Series are completed, in voting rights being retained, meaning the individual can continue to vote in Working Group meetings and be added to Working Group balloting groups, for considerably longer than if the 2-ballot point
was chosen. I would therefore not oppose a change to mandate the 2-ballot point by those that wish to see it.
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
On Behalf Of ROBERT GROW
Sent: 22 February 2022 00:29
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Loss of voting membership for failing to return ballots
I’ll also make some comments <RMG>.
Ok I can't help it any longer....my comments mixed in.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:38 AM Law, David <dlaw@hpe.com>
wrote:
Hi Jon,
Thank you so much for your comments, I've tried to summarize them with respect to each of the three items I raised. Please let me know how I did :-)
Best regards,
David
-----
[1] Removal of the restriction that abstaining, other than for 'lack of expertise', does not count as returning a ballot, allowing any abstain to now count.
I don't think you commented on this.
<JWR> My Recollection of when "Abstain - Lack of Expertise" was mandated is in the 1993-1994 time frame. This was due to not having enough Valid
Ballots posted.
If you have too many abstains (lack of time - we are all busy; etc). so we determined that you must provide more incentive to participate to maintain
the voting rights. The understanding is that one in 3 ballots you may miss out. As I recollect, Letter Ballots or Recirculation ballots each counted in the window at that time. it is later (last 2 years that at least in 802.11) that the LB series (initial
ballot and all recirculations) counted as the entries of 3 in the window.
<BAR> While I think the intent is clear, it has proven not valid IMO. Instead of abstaining, voters without the time or interest to properly review a draft simply vote "approve" without comment. This form of
consensus by "don't care" does not improve the draft. And we can't tell the "approve because it's really ready" from the "approve because I don't have time or don't care". If we enable more accurate options, we have the possibility we'll see how many voters
actually took the time to review the draft, which is useful information. Possibly. Though I admit it is more likely the "don't cares" will simply continue to vote "approve" as it's established habit. So while probably not an intentional change, I think
allowing more reasons to abstain is a good change.
<RMG> We used to reference the Sponsor ballot process (now called SA or Standards Committee ballot), but now have significantly more detail on ballot validity in LMSC rules. SA ballot then and now includes a maximum abstain percentage, I can’t now find any
maximum abstain threshold that applies to WG ballot on advancing a draft to SA ballot. (As best I can tell, a Y=3, N=1, A=100 vote would pass as long as the number of WG voters was 207 or less. We still have a simple majority response ratio that has to be
met.)
<RMG> When we had the maximum 30% abstain not counting Abstain-Lack of Expertise, that drove the tendency to vote Approve rather than Abstain that Ben observes. My recollection is that exemption was for 802.1 where the breath of technologies was broader than
other WGs. Today, I think other 802 WGs now see similar breath of technical content where a WG member might not be an expert on some areas of standardization in an amendment.
<RMG> In times past, some WGs treated initial and recirculation ballots as separate ballots and other WGs treated WG ballots as the series as clarified in our current rules are very clear to me that we enforce the 2 of 3 rule on a ballot series (as (initial
ballot plus recirculations).
[2] Interpretation of '... last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote ...' text.
I believe you don't see an issue with the text. The 'window' of the 'last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote' is reset when an individual regains their voting rights after losing them.
<JWR> that is correct, I don't see an issue.
[3] If a 'doomed voter' that has failed to respond to the last 2 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote should lose their voting rights immediately.
I believe you support changing the rules so that a 'doomed voter' loses their voting rights immediately.
<JWR> No,
I do not support changing the rules, I think that they are sufficient in this matter as well. The Chair may cause the voter rights to be removed at the 2 ballot or 3 ballot point. I don't have issues with either point.
<RMG> I agree with David on this. The rule is vague for a 'doomed voter’. "A voting member that fails to return 2 of the last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote loses membership." The WG P&P do not have any interpretation
clause, just a procedure to follow to attempt to resolve a procedural issue (LMSC WG P&P clauses 9 and 10). I have been challenged that the 2 of 3 rule requires emphasis on the “3”. In other words, that the rule can’t be enforced until a member has been
around for three WG ballot series. I looked at the 802.3 records last year and found that it had been almost one year between WG ballot series. If the emphasis is on the “2” as Jon (and I) interpret the rule, then a “Y N N” voter and a “- N N” voter lose
their voting rights at the same time but a WG chair that puts the emphasis on the “3” of the rule could have the “- N N” member retain their voting rights for a significant time (yes I found an 802.3 voter that was a “- N N” for ~ 1 year). I favor clarifying
this to eliminate the ambiguity on a "doomed voter” because we don’t have an appeal to point at to interpret the rule consistently (and don’t want one).
-----
From: Jon Rosdahl <jrosdahl@ieee.org>
Sent: 17 February 2022 01:46
To: Law, David <dlaw@hpe.com>
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Loss of voting membership for failing to return ballots
Hi David,
I do not see this as ambiguously as you do.
When I lose my voting rights, the "window" of Letter ballots (Series or not) is closed.
I then am required to earn my voting rights again with attendance, and after I gain my voting rights again, then I start the "Window" of eligibility on Letter Ballots (Series or not).
I agree that Letter Ballot Series includes the initial Letter Ballot, and any recirculations as part of the Letter Ballot (the Series).
Some Letter Ballot Series have only one Letter Ballot (fails), but the requirement to vote have not changed, and if you fail to vote for the initial Letter ballot that fails, it counts as a non vote for the LB Series.
So, when someone starts over, or initially start being a voting member, it should be the same.
As for your example of missing the initial 2 LB series after becoming a voter...well, your voting membership was short lived.
----NN = lost voting right....as you point out, the 3rd one won't save you...but remember it is the full series, so are the two "N" a completed series, or just the initial LB?
That is what makes the difference.
The loss of voting rights at the ---NN vs ---NNY, is that the member can start to regain voting rights quicker....
so I would say if you notice ---NN, reset them to start over, and hopefully they will do better in the next sequence.
Jon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Rosdahl Engineer, Senior Staff
IEEE 802 Executive Secretary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
office: 801-492-4023 10871 North 5750 West
cell: 801-376-6435 Highland, UT 84003
A Job is only necessary to eat!
A Family is necessary to be happy!!
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:52 AM Law, David <mailto:dlaw@hpe.com>
wrote:
Dear IEEE 802 EC,
As I've had a few projects move to Standards Association ballot in the last few weeks a few issues have become apparent regarding the new (Revision 23, approved 7 December 2021) subclause 4.2.1 'Requirements to Maintain Voting Membership' language in the Policies
and Procedures for Standards Development for the IEEE 802 Local Area Network/Metropolitan Area Network (LAN/MAN) Standards Committee All Working Groups <https://mentor.ieee.org/802-ec/dcn/21/ec-21-0207-23-0PNP-ieee-802-lmsc-working-group-policies-and-procedures.pdf#page=12>
that reads 'A voting member that fails to return 2 of the last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote loses membership.'.
[1] The old text read 'Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than "lack of technical expertise."'. The new wording seems
to have removed the text about abstaining, other than for 'lack of expertise', not counting. So, it seems that an abstain 'lack of time' or for any other reason is now considered sufficient to retain voting membership. I don't think this was intended.
[2] Imagine an individual has lost their voting membership for not returning a vote on the last two ballot series. I'll represent this as 'Y N N' (see key below). There are then several ballot series while the individual is not a voting member. I'll represent
this as 'R R R - - - -'. The individual then regains voting membership and returns a vote on the next ballot aeries after that. I'll represent this as 'R R R - - - - Y'.
If, however, I was to apply the '... last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote ...' literally, this would seem to include the two ballots before they lost their voting membership and the one after they regained their voting
membership. Doing this would mean they would immediately lose their voting rights again as their record would be 'Y N N - - - - Y' and would not have returned a ballot for 2 of the last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series in which they are eligible to vote
in.
Again, I don't think that was intended as there would be no way for an individual in this situation to avoid losing their voting membership immediately after regaining it. Instead, I think the intent is for the window to be the three most recent ballot series.
Key:
Y : Submitted a ballot
N : Did not submit a ballot
- : Not in balloting group for ballot
R : In balloting group but subsequently lost voting rights
[3] There has been a discussion within the IEEE 802.3 leadership about what should happen if a new voter, or a returning voter, fails to respond to the first two ballot series they are eligible to vote in. I'll represent this as '- - - - N N'. One argument
is that they should immediately lose their voting membership, since even if they do respond during the third ballot series, they can't possibly meet the two out of three requirements. The counterargument is that they don't lose their voting membership until
the end of the third ballot series.
Suggested new text to address the issues above would be 'A voting member that fails to return 2 of the last 2 Working Group Letter Ballot Series, or 2 of the last 3 Working Group Letter Ballot Series, if eligible to vote in the respective Working Group Letter
Ballot Series, loses membership. Abstaining, other than for 'lack of expertise', is not considered returning a ballot.'.
I've made James aware of these concerns and expect they will be discussed at the upcoming March 2022 IEEE 802 Rules meeting.
Best regards,
David
----------
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.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
|