Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++Ballot on WG electronic voting]
Stop the madness :)
Let us remember what John Hawkins wrote, the Chair is responsible for
recognizing a speaker and ruling on Order of motions. Personally I do not expect
a ton of motions, I expect to use this ability to do things that progress
the work forward. For example, suppose a new version of a liason
letter is written and I want approval, I can request it through an
email ballot. Similarly, if we had a ballot pass and we wanted to
forward it to the SEC for approval to Revcom, we could do it outside
of a meeting.
I do not view votes on motions as having an effect on membership. There
are rules concerning ballots not motions.
Given the above fact, if someone is on leave, thats just too bad,
it is similar to them being at the washroom when a vote is held at a meeting.
I do not plan on creating an maintaining a separate reflector at this
time. It is painful enough to deal with one already. Motions should not be
private - the process is open and should remain so just like in a meeting.
cheers,
mike
Peter Jones wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
> I would like to support Italo's point. Unless we are very careful, this
> could prove to be a procedural nightmare. How many motions per day would we
> have to vote on?
>
> A couple of things that may be worth considering.
> * What if someone is on leave and not reading email for 3 weeks.
> * Use a separate reflector form motions/voting - this should be
> members only (to allow the working group to discuss motions somewhat
> privately). Membership of this could be restricted to voters if appropriate.
> * Use email voting like a straw poll - to gauge general feeling on a
> subject more formally
>
> We want to make sure that email voting is an improvement - not a step
> backward.
>
> regards
> peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Busi, Italo /itah32 [mailto:Italo.Busi@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:44 AM
> To: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot
> +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting]
>
> I would like to add my opinions/suggestions/questions on this issue.
>
> I think that the voting period can never be less than 2 weeks.
> Most of us are used to travel, so we cannot ensure a timely reaction to
> any motion in terms of comments and/or votes.
>
> I think that the mail announcing the voting period shall be sent as an
> "high priority" (sic) mail.
> This will help anybody who is flooded by a huge number of daily mails
> to recognize it.
>
> I think that the rule "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" should not apply for motions
> other than draft balloting.
> I am not forced to come to all the meetings nor to vote to all the
> motions called in a meeting, so I do not understand why I should be
> forced to vot to all the electronic motions.
>
> How do you plan to manage "message loss"?
>
> Italo
--
Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867