RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pendingrules change
Geoff,
I'm not exactly sure how the other groups do voting tokens.
In 802.16, we print colored sticky-labels that include the member's
name and the session number. You peel off the label and stick it on
your paper registration badge in order to make a personalized voting
token that is tied to that particular session. To vote, you raise
your badge in the air, showing the label to the person doing the
counting. Since it's in color, it's pretty easy to see.
This has worked for us. There is some potential for sharing of voting
tokens or reuse of old ones, but we've never heard of a problem.
Generally, we assume that either (a) people are honest; (b) it's too
hard to cheat; or (c) the possibility of being caught by the counter
or by another member is too risky.
The fact that you have to display your voting token on your chest all
week helps to deflate the concern. If someone talking to you over
coffee notices that you aren't a member and recalls seeing you vote,
the situation could be embarrassing.
Roger
At 14:12 -0800 03/11/17, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Roger-
>
>I am not familiar with just how you folks implement the use of
>voting tokens. I can understand how they could help mitigate the
>unauthorized voter problem.
>
>What is clear is that you are more worried about roll calls being
>used offensively as a delaying tactic.
>
>My history and concern is of its use as a defensive tactic.
>
>Hopefully we can sort something out that respects both needs.
>
>Geoff
>
>At 02:23 PM 11/17/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
>>Geoff,
>>
>>I am cautious about a rule that would allow a minority to force a
>>roll call vote. I need to think carefully about this during the P&P
>>change ballot, because I see tremendous potential for abuse.
>>
>>I don't know how long a roll-call vote would take in a large group,
>>but I wouldn't be surprised if it took 30-60 minutes. In that case,
>>a relatively small minority could bring the entire process to a
>>complete standstill. A few roll-call votes would prevent any other
>>issue from coming to the floor during, for instance, a closing
>>plenary.
>>
>>I'm glad you recognize that the impact of a roll call does depend
>>on whether the WG limits normal voting to members only. In 802.16,
>>we use voting tokens and so have a good control of who may vote.
>>Perhaps that's one reason why, to my recollection, I've never heard
>>a request for a roll call in 802.16.
>>
>>If a WG doesn't use voting tokens or otherwise control who votes,
>>then the proposed rule becomes potentially even more onerous
>>because, in that case, you might need a first roll call vote to
>>determine whether the 20% threshold to have a roll call vote was
>>reached; only then could you carry out the roll call vote that was
>>requested.
>>
>>I won't be sad if I find that a WG chair refuses a roll call. This
>>is a judgement call that the chair, who is in a better position to
>>know the full facts, has to make. I am beginning to worry that
>>we'll all be sad if this rule comes into effect and begins to bog
>>down our progress. It will take some strong arguments in favor of
>>the P&P change to get my vote.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>>Bob-
>>>
>>>I agree that any chair may require a roll call vote whenever they
>>>feel it is appropriate.
>>>I believe that the issue that was put before us is when one or
>>>more members of the voting body feel it is appropriate and the
>>>chair does not.
>>>
>>>It makes me sad that a chair would refuse such a request.
>>>I understand that my particular view of this might not be
>>>appropriate in some groups where who may vote is controlled more
>>>carefully than in others.
>>>
>>>Geoff
>>>
>>>
>>>At 11:30 AM 11/17/2003 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree with Paul on this matter. However since our P&P allow a
>>>>chair to decide all procedural matters, any chair may ask for a
>>>>roll call vote at any time they feel it is appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> -Bob
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
>>>>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul
>>>>Nikolich
>>>>Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:25 AM
>>>>To: IEEE802
>>>>Subject: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending
>>>>rules change.
>>>>
>>>>Dear EC members,
>>>>
>>>>The motion to operate under the pending rules change on Roll Call
>>>>Votes was 7 approve, 5 disapprove, 1 abstain.
>>>>
>>>>The LMSC bylaws require a least a 2/3 majority of all EC members
>>>>to approve a rules change for submission to ballot and for
>>>>adoption. The EC has 13 members with voting rights. Greater than
>>>>2/3 of the EC members is at least 9. In my haste to conclude the
>>>>meeting, I didn't apply this rationale, but upon reflection, it
>>>>is my judgement that motions regarding the adoption of a rule
>>>>(regardless if they are permanent or temporary) must require at
>>>>least 2/3 majority. Therefore, the motion to operate under the
>>>>pending rules change on roll call votes did not pass as it did
>>>>not achieve at least a 2/3 majority.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>>Chairman, LMSC