RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting
I agree with Bob's rationale, as stated below,
with the understanding that the 50% is the
total of those voting Yes, No, and Abstain.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@bstormnetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2:10 PM
> To: 802sec (stds-802-sec@ieee.org)
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
> WG electronic voting
>
>
>
> I would like to suggest that a quorum for an electronic WG
> ballot should be
> 50% of the voting membership of the WG. I suggest this
> because all of the
> voting members will have received the email announcing the
> particular motion
> on which the vote is to take place. This means, to me, that
> all voting
> members are "present" and have heard the question placed
> before the WG, just
> as if they were standing in the room at a face to face meeting.
>
> Getting the voters to respond is simple, the rule should
> state that failure
> to return any 2 out of 3 electronic ballots results in loss of voting
> membership. This addition helps the WG in two respects.
> First it increases
> participation in the business of the WG. Second, it helps to
> rapidly prune
> the voting roster of inactive members, resulting in a lower
> number of voting
> members being required to reach a quorum.
>
> -Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:18 PM
> To: Mike Takefman; p.nikolich@ieee.org
> Cc: 'IEEE802'
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++
> Ballot on WG
> electronic voting
>
>
>
> Mike, for SEC email ballots the eligible voters all have a
> very significant
> commitment to remain engaged and participate in the process.
> Therefore, the
> SEC electronic balloting rules call for motions to pass with
> >50% of ALL
> ELIGIBLE VOTERS. As a consequence, not voting on an SEC
> electronic ballot
> is equivalent to casting a NO vote.
>
> Since the ballot group for any of the Working Groups is so
> much larger, even
> getting 50% of the voters to respond is an effort. It would
> be a useless
> exercise to require Working Group e-mail ballots to have
> greater than 50% of
> the voting members cast a YES vote.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Takefman" <tak@cisco.com>
> To: <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> Cc: "'Robert D. Love'" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>; "'IEEE802'"
> <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++
> Ballot on WG
> electronic voting
>
>
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > This makes sense and is what I was assuming.
> >
> > The confusing point was that your email indicated that
> > for the current SEC motion a failure to vote was counted as a NO.
> > I took a quick look at the rules and it is not clear to me why a
> > fail to vote on an SEC motion is a no vote. Rather the rule 3.4.2.1
> > appears to state that a majority of the voting SEC members
> must reply.
> >
> > mike
> >
> > Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > The quorom for an electonic ballot is that 50% of the
> working group
> voting
> > > members must respond YES, NO or ABSTAIN. This is exactly
> the same as a
> > > quorum for any WG meeting that is not held during a
> plenary session.
> > >
> > > --Paul
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:49 PM
> > > To: Mike Takefman; p.nikolich@ieee.org
> > > Cc: 'IEEE802'
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot
> +++ Ballot on
> > > WG electronic voting
> > >
> > > Mike, I believe 50% of the eligible voters voting YES,
> NO, or ABSTAIN,
> is a
> > > quorum for electronic balloting. See the 802.5 Working
> Group electronic
> > > balloting rules I posted on the 802.17 reflector which explicitly
> specify
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Robert D. Love
> > > Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> > > President, LAN Connect Consultants
> > > 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> > > Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> > > email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mike Takefman" <tak@cisco.com>
> > > To: <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
> > > Cc: "'IEEE802'" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot
> +++ Ballot on
> WG
> > > electronic voting
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > a question from one of my people. What consitutes a
> quorum for an
> > > > electronic vote (either motion or ballot).
> > > >
> > > > For example, this SEC rules change ballot marks a
> failure to vote
> > > > as a vote against. Hence, one could argue there is no quorum
> requirement
> > > > as all voters end up with either a no or whatever they actually
> responded
> > > > with and 100% of the voters are counted.
> > > >
> > > > Another interpretation is similar to those of a
> meeting. Specifically
> > > > the number of people who respond to the ballot as a yes or no or
> abstain
> > > > must be greater than 50% of the voting members.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear SEC members,
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules
> change letter
> ballot
> > > on WG
> > > > > Electronic Voting.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the
> working group
> level.
> > > > >
> > > > > Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ballot opens March 18, 2002 and closes June 8,
> 2002 12 midnight
> EDT
> > > > > (remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a
> DISAPPROVE
> > > > > vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the
> 802-wide email
> list as
> > > > > well. WG chairs, please invite your WG members to
> comment through
> you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > --Paul Nikolich
> > > > >
> > > > > Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
> > > > > email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> > > > > cell: 857.205.0050
> > > > > mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> > > --------------------------
> > > > >
> Name:
> MAR2002
> > > rules change on wg electronic balloting.pdf
> > > > > MAR2002 rules change on wg electronic
> balloting.pdf Type:
> Acrobat
> > > (application/pdf)
> > > > >
> Encoding:
> base64
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> > > > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > > > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > > > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > > > voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> >
> > --
> > Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
>