| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Based on the high level of interest in possible IEEE 802.17 Electronic Voting rules, I recommend we take this topic up for discussion at our July plenary meeting on Monday morning. In advance of that I recommend we develop the rules and post them to the reflector. Attached is my very first cut at what those voting rules may be. Please note the sentence "Normally motions will be considered in order if it is important to the progress of the WG for them to be settled prior to our next plenary meeting, otherwise they will be ruled out of order." I propose that we only use electronic voting when not doing so would slow down our progress. I believe it should be used to enhance our normal processes, not subvert them. By limiting electronic voting in this way, I believe that most of the objections posted on this reflector will be addressed. I encourage those of you with suggestions for improving this proposed motion (to be discussed in July) to post your suggested revisions and comments. This way we can expedite our July discussion. Thank you. Best regards, Robert D. Love Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816 email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Jones" <PJones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:02 PM 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
Proposed RPRWG-ElectronicVotingRules.doc