To echo John’s concerns and maybe to
offer a solution (which is quite different from what Bob Love suggests based on
802.5).
I do NOT think that the e-ballot should be
used for most of the ballots we use in meetings (like 98% of them). For those,
the meeting itself should be the only forum to vote. This way many of John’s
concern can be addressed. What I suggest (which is base don past experience in
other bodies), is that e-ballots should be used very seldom on very specific occasions
where the time being saved (i.e. not waiting to next meeting) is significant. In
addition, it should also be used only when the actual formulation of the ballot
or the need for this ballot is not debated (this will be the filter to
eliminate the 98% mentioned above). Most regular votes should continue to be
carried out in meetings as I think meetings are still the best forum for
carrying out this sort of WG business. The formulation of the vote should be
done in a preceding meeting
Furthermore, the decision to carry a given
ballot electronically should be first approved by the WG in a previous meeting.
If you see my examples below, you’ll agree that this covers most cases.
Finally, whenever exceptions or further interpretations need to be made, I
think that the chair should be authorized to decide!!!.
Some examples of ballots which may be carried
out electronically:
- A decision to move the draft one step further after work as been
done in the last meeting and there was additional editorial work required
by the editors off-line. The new draft will be published on –line on
a given date and then people can vote Y/N.
- A decision to choose between two locations/time frames for an
interim meeting.
- Authorizing an Ad-hoc subgroup
- Reaffirming interim meeting decisions. This is an important one. I
understand that in the last meeting, all of January motions were approved
fairly smoothly, but this may not always be the case and there may be
times when saving these two months may be crucial (also, remember that in the
last interim we almost had a full quorum. In such a case, the interim meeting
will vote on placing all its (relevant) motions for e-balloting on a
certain date, and all members will vote on as-is as a block (or the
interim may decide nor to do this if we are far from true consensus.). A
side comment: It will be funny if the number of yes-voters in the interim
is larger than the number of total voters in the e-ballot due to lack of
response…..
While these might not cover all possible
topics that may arise (and will definitely discourage people from just bringing
up motions for e-ballot on a whim), from past experience, these examples are
the prime time savers in the life of a working group.
Offer
Pazy
Burlington,
MA
Tel:
(781)359-9099 x1907
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John Hawkins
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:51
PM
To: dot17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd:
[802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]
If I understand the
proposal correctly, this change will enable Working Group level votes by email
(i.e.. 802.17, 802.3, 802.thingy, will be able to hold an official vote via
email). Am I right on that? Or is this addressing SEC-level voting (i.e.. Mike
Takefman, Geoff Thompson, whoever chairs 802.thingy, can vote on SEC items
just like they do on Monday mornings before plenaries).
If my interpretation is
correct, read on. Otherwise, tell me to read the proposal again and drop this
email.
In answer to Harry's
question, I would say the official list is the signup sheet(s) that
circulate(s) each and every WG meeting. These contain both the contact
information (which is why you are asked to check and correct it at each
meeting) and the attendance record (so we know who has voting rights).
The posted versions on
the website were accurate digests of this information at some point (but
remember, the paper lists are "official.") Whenever I'm given a
more accurate digest I'll post it.
Having answered the
"who votes" question, I do have some concerns. I am largely
supportive of this CONCEPT, but my questions are about the procedure (or lack
thereof):
1. How would motions
become known to the voters? Via the reflector? How are we to keep the reflector
from becoming a cacophony of motions with overlapping vote deadlines? How
do we avoid simultaneous contradictory motions from being under
consideration?
2. Assuming we know the
answer to #1 above, who decides which votes are eligible for electronic voting
vs. those that must wait for a Plenary session? Is anything and everything up
for electronic voting? This could be controversial if not understood apriori.
If I don't get approval at a plenary, can I ask that an electronic vote be
held? Vice-versa?
3. Would this not result
in poor correlation between comments and presentations made at meetings and
results of voting? At least with voting at meetings, we have a reasonable
assurance that proponents and opponents of a given motion were given a fair
hearing by the voters. In the email vote, there is no similar assurance is
there?
As confusing and
seemingly archaic as Robert's Rules are, they do protect us from several
inconsistencies that electronic balloting will open up again. (e.g. only one
main motion may be on the floor at a time, only one person speak time and
all proponents/opponents can be heard assuming they are "in order")
We will need a clearly spelled out procedure that supplements Robert's if
e-voting is to go forward. I think the SEC should propose what those
procedures/rules are, so different WG's don't adopt grossly different
practices, thus confusing us all.
As I say, I hope we can
work all this out and make this happen, but in absence of some procedural
details, we could be walking into quicksand.
john
Optical Ethernet Marketing
( Tel 770 708 7375
(ESN 268)
2 Fax 253-981-8720 *
Email jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
, Mail Nortel Networks, Mail
drop 46D/02/F60
5405 Windward Parkway, Alpharetta GA 30004, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Peng, Harry [CAR:OM3H:EXCH]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:53
PM
To: dot17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd:
[802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]
Mike:
How is the letter ballot sent electronically to the
Working group member?
i.e to which email account for
those who has many and
how it is authenticated?
There must exist an official WG member list?
I notice that the member's list in
the members area
List of 802.17 Members
is out of date. Is this the official WG member list?
Regards,
Harry
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:30
PM
To: dot17
Subject: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++
SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++
Ballot on WG electronic voting]
Dear RPRWGers,
here is a rule change going through the SEC - if
anyone has comments please
send them to the reflector.
Otherwise I will vote my conscience, which at
this point would be Approve.
mike
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules
Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:52:04
-0500
From: "Paul Nikolich"
<Paul.nikolich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:
<p.nikolich@xxxxxxxx>
To: "'IEEE802'"
<stds-802-sec@xxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxx
cell:
857.205.0050
mail: 18 Bishops Lane,
Lynnfield, MA 01940