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
> >>
> >>
> >>