| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear SEC members,
The ballot on “SEC electronic balloting” is now closed. The ballot fails as indicated below. Please review the results (vote tally and comments) for accuracy and let me know if you see any errors. I believe all the comments are resolvable. I presume those that did not vote had no further comments to add. If you have any further comments, please send them to me and I will attempt to incorporate them in my recommended comment resolution. I will send out a proposed resolution prior to the March plenary (probably towards the end of February).
Thanks to everyone for the comments and consideration.
Best Regards,
Mat
Ballot Results and comments as of 2/7/03
00 Paul Nikolich DIS With Comments 01 Geoff Thompson DIS With Comments 02 Matthew Sherman DNV 03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV 04 Bob O'Hara DNV 05 Bill Quackenbush DNV 06 Tony Jeffree DIS With Comments 07 Bob Grow DNV 08 Stuart Kerry DNV 09 Bob Heile DNV 10 Roger Marks DNV 11 Mike Takefman DNV 12 Carl Stevenson DIS With Comments 13 Jim Lansford DNV 14 Mark Klerer DNV ------------------------------------------------------- totals: 0 APP 4 DIS 0 ABS 11 DNV
10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
Comments to date:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Tue 2/4/2003 2:24 PM
I vote DISAPPROVE on the
basis of other comments that I expect to have fixed "All comments from those outside the membership of the SEC shall be considered. Commenters from outside the voting membership of the SEC are urged to seek to have a voter (normally their Working Group Chair) include commenter's viewpoint in their vote." I am thinking we should say
what happens when and if a WG Chair (or someone jumping in to sure the deadline
is met) DOESN'T get the material forwarded to a WG reflector within 5
days. Do we invalidate the ballot? This would equivalent to a pocket veto and a
bad idea. We could bump the schedule on the basis of the last distribution date
but that gets complicated and could invalidate a rules ballot on the basis of
late closing date. I'm not exactly sure how to fix this. I would like to discuss
this during the rules meeting. I do hope, however, that we can avoid deep-ending
on the issue. Posting ballots on the web-site would help some.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Tue 1/14/2003 5:52 AM
I vote Disapprove. I will change my vote to APPROVE if the comments made by Pat Thaler and Tony Jeffree are accepted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net] Mon 1/13/2003 8:22 PM
I vote Disapprove. I will change my vote to APPROVE if the comments made by Pat Thaler and Tony Jeffree are accepted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ pat_thaler@agilent.com Thu 1/9/2003 6:10 PM
Thanks Mat. Your suggestion looks fine to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Wed 1/8/2003 5:46 PM
I vote approve subject to fixing a couple of minor "nits". The proposed 5.1.5.1 reads:
"After all standards, recommended practices and Technical Reports for which a hibernating working group is responsible are withdrawn or transferred to another group or groups, the hibernating working group will be disbanded.
The disbanding of a Working Group requires an Executive Committee ballot. A disbanded Working Group is then completely abolished."
If the working group "..will be disbanded" when all its documents are withdrawn or transferred, then it is not clear why there is a need for a ballot. I think what this should be saying is that when its work is done, an EC ballot is run to determine whether to disband the WG.
It would also help considerably if the last para was re-worded to:
a) make it clear that the question on the ballot is whether to disband the WG (as opposed to just any question that springs to mind); and
b) make it clear that the ballot has to pass in order for the WG to be disbanded; and
c) clarify what happens if this ballot should fail; and
d) not beg the question as to what the difference is between disbanding and abolishing a WG.
Perhaps a re-wording along these lines would fix these problems:
"After all standards, recommended practices and Technical Reports for which a hibernating working group is responsible are withdrawn or transferred to another group or groups, an Executive Committee ballot shall be initiated, in order to determine whether the working group will be disbanded.
If this Executive Committee ballot passes (i.e., shows that a majority of the Executive Committee is in favour of disbanding the Working Group), then the Working Group is disbanded. If the ballot fails, then the Chair shall determine a future date for a re-run of the ballot."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sherman, Matthew J (Matthew) Tue 1/7/2003 6:38 PM
I agree with all your suggestions. If I were to effect what you suggest regarding a minimum duration on rules change ballots, I would do the following:
In section 3.6.3 after "rules changes" I would insert "shall be at least 30 days in length, and"
I'm open to further comment, but we can work the details during comment resolution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pat_thaler@agilent.com Tue 1/7/2003 5:34 PM
Substantive: There is a requirement that ballots be forwarded to WG and TAG reflectors within 5 working days, but no requirement for minimum duration of ballots so that distribution may occur after the Executive Committee ballot has closed. At a minimum, at least put in a requirement that the ballot duration be something longer than 5 working days.
There is no minimum duration for rules change ballots and no minimum time between distribution of the rules change and close of the ballot. In the existing rules that time period is 30 days. A rules change should not be done lightly and urgency is not dictating a short duration so it should have a minimum time period. 30 days would be reasonable.
Editorial: 3.4.2.1 "shall determine minimum duration of the ballot, issue the ballot and tally the results." reads better to me because that is the order one does the actions.
Matthew
Sherman
|