Re: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++Ballot on WG electronic voting]
Peter and Mike,
We can follow the same procedure that we had in the Performance Committee
where we put RPR Perf: in the subject field.
So, we can put "Motion:" in the subject field to make sure that it catches
everyone's attention.
Regards,
Khaled Amer
President, AmerNet Inc.
Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists
Address: 13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620
Phone: (949)552-1114 Fax: (949)552-1116
e-mail: amer@xxxxxxxxxxx
Web: www.performancemodeling.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jones" <PJones@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 10:02 AM
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] [Fwd: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot
+++Ballot on WG electronic voting]
>
> Mike,
>
> OK - I take your point.
>
> The process for moving is mediated through the chair, and missing a vote
has
> no consequences beyond not getting a say on that motion. Do you need to
> address the "recognizing a speaker" issue? I assume that to move a motion
I
> would send a request to the chair (or vice chair) and you make a public
> ruling of acceptability. Is that how you see it working?
>
> I understand about the reflector (I wouldn't want to maintain it either) -
> but I still personally think it might make sense to be able to separate
the
> message streams (i.e. I take more notice of the motion/voting reflector
than
> the general discussion reflector). Maybe we could use a standard Subject
> line format so that a email filter can split the messages up.
>
> I may have missed the answer earlier, but I assume that we could be voting
> on multiple motions at once.
>
> If you went forward with this - would you plan to use it for all three
> possibilities:
> 1) Administrative motions
> 2) Technical Motions
> 3) Straw polls
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: Peter Jones
> Cc: stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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