Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

stds-802-16: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++Ballot on WG electronic voting



Here is my vote in this SEC rules change ballot. Comments will be 
resolved at an SEC rules meeting in Vancouver.

Roger


>Disapprove, with the following comments:
>
>The rules currently provide two type of voting in WGs: (1) Voting at
>Meetings, and (2) Voting by Letter Ballot. The proposed rules change
>tries to develop the electronic voting procedure as an extension of
>"Voting at Meetings". I see a lot of problems with this, mainly
>related to the formation and amendment of the motion. It's hard to
>extend the checks and balances from the meeting room to the email
>reflector.
>
>Instead, I think we should address the issue by modifying the second
>voting alternative: the Letter Ballot. We understand Letter Ballots,
>and the rules to support them already exist. Furthermore, the current
>rules already distinguish between two kinds of Letter Ballots: (a)
>submitting a draft to Sponsor Ballot, and (b) "other matters"... "at
>the discretion of the Working Group Chair". So we can simply and
>effectively address the problem at hand simply by specifying a
>different duration for the "other matters".
>
>My current suggestion is simply to change:
>
>"The letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the
>time of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot."
>
>to the following:
>
>"For a decision to submit a draft to the Sponsor Ballot Group, the
>letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the time
>of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot. The
>letter ballot may also be conducted by electronic means; in this
>case, the response time is reduced to thirty days. For recirculation
>ballots, and for letter ballots not related to the submission of
>draft standards, the response time must be at least fifteen days, or
>ten days when conducted by electronic means."
>
>[I've tossed in a shorter time for recirculation ballots, since we
>don't define that elsewhere.]
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.4 ("The rights of the Working Group members include
>the following:"), change
>
>d) To vote by mail on drafts to be submitted to the Sponsor Ballot Group.
>
>to
>
>d) To vote in Working Group Letter Ballots.
>
>
>Also, in 5.1.3.3, change:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other
>than "lack of technical expertise."
>
>by inserting the words in brackets:
>
>Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
>ballots [regarding draft standards] are not returned, or are returned
>with an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise."
>
>Roger
>
>  >
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>  >Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:21 AM
>  >To: 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
>  >Cc: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org'; 'Geoff Thompson'
>  >Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on W
>  >G electronic voting
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >Hi Everyone,
>  >
>  >Per Paul's request, I will be tabulating the results of this Ballot, and
>  >working to "get out the vote".  The vote formally closes at June 8, 2002 12
>  >midnight EDT.   We still have about 3 weeks, but we only have only had 3
>  >people formally vote to date.  Here is the current vote Talley:
>  >
>  >Vote Talley as of 5/14/02
>  >
>  >00 Paul Nikolich                                     DNV
>  >01 Geoff Thompson                    DIS
>  >02 Buzz Rigsbee                                      DNV
>  >03 Bob O'Hara                        DIS
>  >04 Bill Quackenbush                                  DNV
>  >05 Tony Jeffree                                      DNV
>  >06 Bob Grow                APP
>  >07 Stuart Kerry                                      DNV
>  >08 Bob Heile                                         DNV
>  >09 Roger Marks                                       DNV
>  >10 Mike Takefman                                     DNV
>  >11 Carl Stevenson                                    DNV
>  >             total:
>  >
>  >6 APPROVES required to PASS.  Ballot Currently FAILING ( 1 APP, 2 DIS, 9
>  >DNV, 0 ABS)
>  >
>  >
>  >Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting above.  Note that
>  >I was a little unsure from the comments if Mike had formally voted yet or
>  >not, but for now I have him as not voting.
>  >
>  >We had some lively discussion on this ballot earlier on.  A synopsis of the
>  >comments to date is provided below.  However there has been no real activity
>  >on this ballot recently.  If people have made up their minds, I encourage
>  >them to express a formal vote.  If not, I encourage them to express their
>  >concerns so that others may consider them, and we may continue to debate the
>  >issue during the remaining 3 weeks.
>  >
>  >Best Regards,
>  >
>  >Mat
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >Matthew Sherman
>  >PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>  >AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>  >Room B255, Building 103
>  >180 Park Avenue
>  >P.O. Box 971
>  >Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>  >Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>  >Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>  >EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>  >
>  >
>  >==========================================================================
>  >Summary of comments to date:
>  >
>  >Ballot Comments:
>  >
>  >Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]  Mon 4/1/2002 9:41 AM
>  >
>  >5.1.4.2.1 Voting on technical motions at Meeting
>  >...
>  >The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. ...
>  >
>  >This should be changed to "The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings
>  >or on electronic votes." OR
>  >"The Working Group Chair may vote on all motions" OR
>  >some wording with the same effect
>  >
>  >I will vote approve if the wording is improved.
>  >
>  >If others do not feel the original wording restricts the chair
>  >from voting on electronic motions I withdraw the comment and
>  >Approve.
>  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 12:31 PM
>  >
>  >The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>  >the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>  >
>  >That could be:
>  >          50% abstain
>  >          40% Approve
>  >          10% Disapprove
>  >And the measure would pass.
>  >I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>  >I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>  >be decided in a meeting.
>  >
>  >If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>  >negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]  Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>  >
>  >I vote DISAPPROVE until the following additions are made to the text
>  >to be changed:
>  >
>  >1) In an earlier email exchange I suggested that non-returned email
>  >ballots be considered exactly the same as non-returned letter
>  >ballots, i.e., that they negatively affect the non-balloter's voting
>  >status.  Please change the first sentence in 5.1.3.3 to the
>  >following:
>  >
>  >"Membership may be lost if any two of the last three Working Group
>  >letter or email ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
>  >abstention other than "lack of technical expertise.""
>  >
>  >2) Contrary to Geoff's position, I would like to see a minimum return
>  >requirement as it is currently stated in 5.1.4.2.1, without requiring
>  >that non-returned ballots be considered negative votes.  Counting
>  >non-returned ballots as anything at all makes absolutely no sense to
>  >me.  It means that someone who is no longer participating, who has re-
>  >tired, who has moved into another area of work, possibly even
>  >someone who is dead, can affect the outcome of an electronic ballot
>  >simply by not replying.  They can continue to do this until their
>  >voting status is lost as described in 5.1.3.3.  Last I checked, the
>  >Daly's of Chicago were not running the LMSC.
>  >
>  >What I would like to see is a minimum abstention requirement, like
>  >that for sponsor ballots.  Please add to 5.1.4.2.1 "Non-returned
>  >ballots on votes by electronic means are not counted as either yea,
>  >nea, or abstain.  On votes by electronic means, a vote is not valid
>  >if more than 30% of the ballots returned are abstentions."
>  >
>  >3) I believe that the change to the title of section 5.1.4.2.1 has
>  >the unfortunate effect of limiting voting by electronic means to only
>  >technical matters.  As such, it would prevent a WG from voting by
>  >electronic means on any procedural matters, such as sending liaison
>  >letters that were not available by the close of a meeting.  Is this
>  >the intent of the rules change?  If not, perhaps there should be a
>  >separate section on voting by electronic means, as there is for
>  >voting by letter ballot.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]  Mon 4/1/2002 5:11 PM
>  >
>  >Bob, for email balloting, I believe that "Lack of Time" is a real and valid
>  >reason for not voting on some of the issues.  Would you consider allowing
>  >"other than "lack of technical expertise.""  to change to "other than "lack
>  >of technical expertise" or "lack of time"", in your proposed text change?
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]  Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>  >
>  >I would consider such an addition.  However, I think that this would require
>  >that we describe voting by electronic means in a section of its own, since
>  >there are now exceptions only for electronic ballots that do not apply to
>  >letter ballots.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:49 PM
>  >
>  >Bob, certainly once we open up balloting to electronic ballots I assume that
>  >they could be used for purposes other than voting on document drafts.  It is
>  >for these other drafts that I would propose the change.  The wording for
>  >voting on document drafts should be generalized to include electronic
>  >balloting so that we do not have to separately spell out what the rules for
>  >voting are electronically on those drafts, as distinct from voting in a
>  >letter ballot.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]  Tue 4/2/2002 8:28 PM
>  >
>  >WARNING!!!  We are starting down the same "rat hole" that stopped any change
>  >in 1999.  As I recall, when we started hacking up the text to open the WG
>  >electronic ballot process for purposes other than electronic letter ballots,
>  >every proposed alteration created additional conflicts with other provisions
>  >in the rules, and approval decreased.  I think most of the problems stemmed
>  >from conflicts on eballot periods, and lack of clarity as to how an
>  >electronic motion is made, seconded (?), etc.  If we want to codify
>  >electronic WG motions and voting in the LMSC rules, I expect many more
>  >changes will be required than what has been proposed by the other Bob's
>  >below.
>  >
>  >I would recommend that we first legitimize our current electronic processes
>  >before trying again to enable and fine tune additional business via
>  >electronic means (i.e., make those other changes a separate rules change
>  >proposal).  Personally, I need to get my taxes done before I spend any time
>  >revisiting the more complex proposals.
>  >
>  >Some comments:
>  >
>  >1.  The addition of "technical" to the first line of 5.1.4.2 was to
>  >eliminate a conflict with other parts of the rules.  The 75% threshold
>  >already in 5.1.4.2.1 was clearly only to apply to technical decisions.
>  >Reading all the rules with current text will show an inconsistency on the
>  >approval threshold for a procedural motion at a meeting.
>  >
>  >2.  The essence of the proposed change is to allow electronic means for a
>  >letter ballot.  (The added sentence to 5.1.4.2.2.)  In that context, Bob
>  >O'Hara's change #1 is not necessary.  It is a letter ballot if electronic or
>  >written if we adopt the proposed change.  This change was felt necessary
>  >because the word "postmark" implies a snail mail ballot process (and the
>  >different ballot period recognizes the improved delivery time of electronic
>  >means).
>  >
>  >3.  The rules already allow the Working Group Chair discression to submit
>  >other matters to letter ballot (5.1.4.2.2).  Bob Love, if you want anything
>  >other than an electronic letter ballot, we are heading down the "rat hole".
>  >Bob O'Hara, could we please make your #3 a seperate rule change effort for a
>  >new section as you offer.
>  >
>  >4.  Bob O'Hara and Geoff.  I don't recall if "quorum" comments were part of
>  >the discussions three years ago.  The proposed text makes no change to
>  >existing letter ballot thresholds (again, it only allows a letter ballot to
>  >be electronic).  The proposed text will not do anything to change what is
>  >currently allowed other than:  a) decrease the letter ballot period to 35
>  >days when conducted electronically, b) lower cost and resource barriers for
>  >submitting other matters to letter ballot.
>  >
>  >5.  It is possible within WG rules to tighten things up (e.g., 802.3 rules
>  >include a 30% abstention threshold).
>  >
>  >6.  Recent activities indicate that we need to improve our language on
>  >quorums.  To that end, my preference would be a separate rules change for
>  >the WG quorum text.  As part of that change, I would extract the quorum
>  >sentences from 5.1.4.2.1 into a new subsection 5.1.4.2.3 and work on them
>  >independent from enabling electronic letter ballots.
>  >
>  >Something about this change engenders scope creap.  From the comments so far
>  >we have desire to extend scope to: define electronic motions, change the
>  >definition of quorum, add an abstention threshold
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [pat_thaler@agilent.com] Wed 4/3/2002 2:56 PM
>  >
>  >1) The most urgent matter is to legitimize the Voting by Letter ballot
>  >provisions for progressing drafts.
>  >
>  >As such, I note that there is still a whole in that the text still does not
>  >recognize a shorter ballot period for recirculation. I would like to see a
>  >statement added to the paragraph like: "These times do not apply to
>  >recirculation ballots." or "Recirculation ballots must be at least 15 days
>  >for postal ballots and 10 days for email."
>  >
>  >If working out the details of non-letter ballot email votes takes more time,
>  >then they should probably be split into separate rules change ballots.
>  >
>  >2) Procedural - according to the text here, procedural motions don't exist
>  >at all. The chair decides procedural matters. (see 5.1.4.1) This is
>  >different from the practice in many (all?) of the working groups which do
>  >vote on procedural matters. The usual working group practice of majority
>  >vote on procedural matters doesn't seem to be in the LMSC rules at all.
>  >
>  >I also think the particular example Bob O'Hara raises of sending a liaison
>  >letter would be a technical vote in most cases because our liaison letters
>  >often contain technical material such as advising another group of a working
>  >group's opinion on a technical matter.
>  >
>  >I'm not sure what to do about procedural matters as some more minor ones are
>  >decided by chairs but substantive ones like setting times and places for
>  >interim meetings and affirming agendas are done by working group votes. One
>  >way to handle this would be for the LMSC rules to make the LMSC rules a bit
>  >more flexible on this point changing the first line of 5.1.4.1 "Procedural
>  >matters may be decided by the Chair of the Working Group or by a vote of the
>  >working group. The Working Group Chair decides which procedural matters
>  >should be voted upon using the guidance of the Working Group operating
>  >rules."
>  >
>  >3) When motions are conducted at a meeting, there is an opportunity for
>  >people to discuss their points of view on the strengths and weaknesses of a
>  >motion before voting. There is also the ability to adjust the motion based
>  >upon that discussion. If email voting is to produce decisions of equal
>  >quality, then there needs to be a provision for discussion. (This is part of
>  >the rat hole, but it needs to be addressed or email votes should not be
>  >given an equal standing to meeting votes.)
>  >
>  >There isn't a Robert's Rules of Order for email motions so we need to create
>  >at least a minimal structure for them.
>  >
>  >Add a paragraph to 5.1.4.2.1
>  >When it is necessary to conduct a vote on a technical motion by electronic
>  >means, then the following procedure shall be followed. The Working Group
>  >Chair or Vice Chair shall send a notice to the Working group to initiate a
>  >discussion period on the proposed motion. Discussion shall use a means that
>  >allows working group members to observe and comment upon the discussion. At
>  >the end of the discussion period, the Working Group Chair or a Vice Chair
>  >shall post the final motion and open the balloting period.  Working Group
>  >operating rules should provide guidance on the length of the discussion and
>  >ballot periods.
>  >
>  >4) Abstentions - Working groups cover a large scope and not everyone feels
>  >able to have an opinion on everything. I hesitate to do something where an
>  >abstention equals a NO. If someone really doesn't have a clue, I don't want
>  >them to just cast a Yes vote because it is easy and they don't want to
>  >obstruct what they don't understand. Therefore, I prefer a separate limit on
>  >percentage of abstentions over putting the abstentions into the calculation
>  >% Yes votes. I wish there were two kinds of abstain - one for "I don't care
>  >about or understand this area and never will" and one for "I'm not ready to
>  >vote on this yet because I am undecided but I expect to have a position
>  >later." Because a lot of the latter kind of abstention usually indicates
>  >that the vote is on shaky ground but the former doesn't.
>  >
>  >5) I don't see the relevance of the historical notes and I don't think one
>  >voter should be singled out as the cause of earlier non-passage.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/8/2002 2:21 PM
>  >
>  >I can agree with Bob's requests to separate the various issues into
>  >individual rules changes, if it is made absolutely clear that the current
>  >rule change proposal for voting by electronic means is as a substitution
>  >only for letter ballots on drafts.  I want it very clear that voting by
>  >electronic means under this particular rule change is not for the conduct or
>  >ordinary working group business, including the ratification of work done at
>  >interim meetings with no quorum, or the posting of any other motion than the
>  >question to forward a WG draft to sponsor ballot with the requirement of
>  >technical comments to support a  vote of "no".  Any WG rules that are not
>  >consistent with this interpretation of the LMSC rules must be clearly
>  >indicated by the SEC to be invalid.
>  >
>  >I continue to vote DISAPPROVE until the clarifications above are included in
>  >the rule change proposal or until it is made clear that the rule change is
>  >limited as I describe above and there is not yet any authority for the WGs
>  >to conduct general business electronically.  I do not want a repeat of the
>  >debacle after the January 802.11 interim meeting.
>  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
>  >Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Fri 5/10/2002 8:23 PM
>  >
>  >Please note my email of 4/2 about the scope creep in recommendations by
>  >other's commenting on this ballot; and support for independent rules change
>  >items to address some of those concerns (plus one of my own).
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >=========================================================================
>  >Preballot Comments:
>  >
>  >Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>  >
>  >The rules on voting for rules changes (3.6.5) require 2/3 approval or ALL
>  >voting members on the SEC.  Therefore, if you do not vote, you are
>  >effectively counted as a negative:
>  >
>  >Approval ratio = approves/(negatives + abstain + did not vote).
>  >
>  >Also for electronic balloting (not concerned with a rules change) 3.4.2.1,
>  >you require a majority of eligible voting SEC members.  Again, the approval
>  >ratio puts ALL members of the SEC in the denominator.
>  >
>  >Therefore a quorum for SEC email ballots is 100% of the SEC voting members.
>  >
>  >
>  >Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]
>  >
>  >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.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>  >Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:18 PM
>  >To: 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Sherman, Matthew'
>  >Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>  >WG electronic voting
>  >
>  >
>  >Geoff,
>  >
>  >FYI Mat and I have discussed this ballot and Mat has agreed to 'run this
>  >ballot'.  This means he will: bug the SEC to return their ballot's on time,
>  >tally the votes, collect and collate the comments and supervise the comment
>  >resolution process.
>  >
>  >--Paul
>  >
>  >-----Original Message-----
>  >From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
>  >Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:31 PM
>  >To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>  >Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>  >Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
>  >WG electronic voting
>  >
>  >
>  >DISAPPROVE
>  >
>  >The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression that if 51% of
>  >the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot is valid.
>  >
>  >That could be:
>  >          50% abstain
>  >          40% Approve
>  >          10% Disapprove
>  >And the measure would pass.
>  >I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
>  >I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters that should
>  >be decided in a meeting.
>  >
>  >If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are considered to be
>  >negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>  >
>  >Geoff
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >At 07:04 AM 4/1/02 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>  >>Dear SEC members,
>  >>
>  >>Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change letter ballot on
>  >WG
>  >>Electronic Voting.  (Note this is a resend of the March 17, 2002 letter
>  >>ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because we did not
>  >  >officially approve it for distribution until last night.  Other than that
>  >it
>  >>is unchanged).
>  >>
>  >>Scope:  To permit voting by electronic means at the working group level.
>  >>
>  >>Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
>  >>
>  >>The ballot opens April 1, 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, if you haven't already done so, 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
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>