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

RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]

Anoop,
 
Yes, that is correct. Failure to participate in 2 out of 3 consecutive WG or SB letter ballots,
for the reasons you describe, will automatically remove that voter from the voting-member
rolls. Voting rights must then be regained as if the former member had just joined the
WG, if that member wishes to vote again.
 
Best regards,
 
- Tom A.
PMC-Sierra
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Anoop Ghanwani [mailto:anoop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 6:51 PM
To: dot17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]

Isn't there also something in there that says if you fail to respond, or
abstain (for reasons other than lack of technical expertise) for 2 out
of the last 3 ballots, you lose your voting rights?
 
-Anoop
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Alexander [mailto:Tom_Alexander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:50 PM
To: 'Raj Sharma'; dot17; 'lauren.schlicht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]

Raj, Lauren,
 
Actually, as per WG and SB rules, silence (lack of returned letter ballots) is counted separately from
abstentions (actively refraining from voting due to lack of time or technical competence). There are
separate minimum requirements for each category. If I remember right, the requirements are:
    > 50% return rate
    < 30% abstention rate (I think this is an 802.3 artifact, not LMSC)
    > 75% approval rate, as measured by counting ONLY the "yes" and "no" votes
 
I suppose the business about not voting counting as disapprove must be an SEC thing. Certainly I
have not seen a WG letter ballot vote where the unreturned ballots were counted as disapproves (or
we'd have a lot fewer 802 standards today! ;-).
 
Cheers,
 
- Tom A.
PMC-Sierra
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Raj Sharma [mailto:raj@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:00 PM
To: dot17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]

Interestingly enough Paul Nikolich's original email had this parenthetical
remark:
 
"(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE vote)"
-----Original Message-----
From: lauren.schlicht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lauren.schlicht@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:46 PM
Cc: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dot17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]


 Silence = abstain


Lauren Schlicht
Mindspeed Technologies
303-543-2007



Raj Sharma <raj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

03/18/2002 04:25 PM

       
        To:        "'John Hawkins'" <jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dot17 <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
        cc:        
        Subject:        RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++         Ballot on WG  electronic voting]



Please correct me if I am wrong:
 
As a WG member either you can respond to an e-ballot by YES, NO or ABSTAIN
or
As a WG member you can be silent.
 
Silence is counted as NO votes.
 
So, for e-ballot:
 
1. Percent approval = (YES-votes) / (Total number of eligible voters in WG)
2. Percent disapproval (NO-votes + Total number of eligible voters in WG - Total number of eligible voters who responded) / (Total number of eligible voters in WG)
3. Percent abstain = (ABSTAIN-votes) / (Total number of eligible voters in WG)
 
raj
 
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hawkins [mailto:jhawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:51 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