| Colleagues,
I think I covered this in today’s (17 Aug) teleconference, but I’ll attempt to put things into writing and provide more detail on the rationale I provided on today’s teleconference.
The IEEE SA process incorporates a set of principles: transparency, openness, consensus, balance, due process, and right of appeal. Where there aren’t specific rules, I as Chair will base decisions on these principles and any relevant corollary I find in the rules. You will note that remaining anonymous is not one of these principles. In fact, keeping things anonymous, in my opinion, is contrary to the principles of transparency and openness.
The IEEE SA ballot process underscores this. Under the rules, I can’t vote NO on a project without providing comments that explain my no vote. If I do vote no without providing comments the vote is not counted as a "Do Not Approve", it is counted as a “Do Not Approve (Negative without comment)” (the preceding quoted terms from the Standards Board Operations Manual, 5.4.3.2) . We mark comments as “R” (required for WG ballot) or “MBS” (must be satisfied for SA ballot) to indicate those comments that are part of (tied to) our Do Not Approve vote as also required in 5.4.3.2. (I expect you as participants understand that “No”, “Nay”, “Negative”, “Disapprove” and “Do not Approve” all mean the same thing.) We expect comments to support a Negative vote, and we clearly identify who submitted such comments in the ballot process.
There really aren’t any “rules” on straw polls. I believe it is consistent with the principles of transparency and openness to allow the requester of a straw poll to request that the poll be recorded by individual votes. While this would be burdensome when meeting in person, it isn’t burdensome on a teleconference. (You may have noticed that voting in 802.3 meetings and our straw polls in P802.3 are actually more efficient than when we have to get counters and count raised hands in an in-person meeting.) When we meet in-person anyone can look around the room to see how individuals are voting by show of hands. Teleconferences are different than in-person meetings and I believe it is consistent with IEEE SA principles to allow the requester of a straw poll to request that the poll be recorded by individual vote to provide a similar capability of being able to look around the room.
You may recall that the straw poll of 18 May referenced during the 17 August teleconference taught me something about WebEx. On my view of a poll as a Web-Ex host, it was there in text next to the poll that it was being recorded individually. When I learned that non-host WebEx participants didn’t have the same notice, I instructed our Secretary to exclude the individual responses that were recorded on 18 May from the minutes. I did that because our process needs to be transparent. Since 18 May, I have attempted to make it very clear when straw polls were being recorded as individual responses and consequently have recorded individual responses in the minutes.
As I explained during the 17 August teleconference, minutes are public information. I am unaware of any rules that prevent someone from including information in the minutes in a presentation (this includes anything recorded in the minutes by name). If any of you are aware of a rule that would have required me to disallow the 17 August presentation or in the future anyone else from including any information recorded in the minutes in a presentation, please inform me of that rule.
I think I have covered my rationale for including names above, and balloting rules are clearly a corollary to no votes on a straw poll, but in case someone wants my opinion of the identification of “Abstain - Need more information” what I read when reviewing the presentation before posting, heard during the presentation, and read in the immediate below reflector email was a plea to please let the presenter know what specific information you need to vote on the proposal a different way.
I know that personally, I am willing to provide anyone the reason why I vote the way I do on any motions or polls. Similarly, I am happy to share my personal opinion on any TF issues, even though I often won’t express opinion on technical proposals before us and I typically do not vote because of the way business is conducted per Roberts Rules of Order. For those of you on the 17 August teleconference, you will understand I am not as reluctant to express an opinion as WG Chair on process and the status of our project. In addition to the responsibility I have as TF Chair to conduct our business in accordance with our rules and that meets the IEEE SA principle of due process, I also have the responsibility as TF Chair to keep the project progressing. I personally and as TF Chair want to see progress!
If you have any additional feedback for me or think I have not covered an important point on this issue (or other issues) I’m open to either private or public correspondence about that. You also can bring any issues you might have in how I am conducting TF work to Mr. Law directly — or less responsive, the final IEEE SA principle, you have the right of appeal which is defined in our set of rules documents.
Robert M. (Bob) Grow
Chair, P802.3cz Multi-Gigabit Optical Automotive Ethernet (OMEGA) Task Force
Dear Ogura-san,
Straw-polls' results are public now in our minutes. I announced on August 3 that I would send this email. For many straw-polls and motions that I did, I received the answer from many participants that more information is needed to justify negative votes or abstaining. I am willing to elaborate more information and give answers to any question in order to get supporters for my baseline proposals and building consensus.
From a logical point of view, I cannot elaborate additional information if I do not know about which specific information is missed, incomplete, etc. My desire to give you and everybody answers and additional information. Please, help me, and let me know which specific information I should prepare.
Best regards, CTO at KDPOF_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110 M: +34 689 319 866
Steve I know, but one can send mail person by person not listing-up in the official presentation. All we are allowed is to list-up supporters, I believe. Thank you, Ichiro On 2021/08/17 19:42, Swanson, Steven E wrote: Ogura-san,
In general, there is no issue with abstaining on a straw poll. However, Ruben’s straw polls had three options for abstaining:
Abstain: I need more information
Abstain: Lack of expertise
Abstain: I want to be neutral
On the 4 straw polls, you voted:
Straw poll 1: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 2: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 3: Abstain: need more information
Straw poll 4: No vote
Ruben is asking what information do you need for Straw polls 1-3?
If one votes “no” on a straw poll, what are the specific reasons why?
We cannot make progress if we don’t know your concerns with the proposals so the concerns can be addressed.
Steve
Sent from my personal assistant
On Aug 17, 2021, at 6:14 AM, Ichiro Ogura <i-ogura@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I returned from my off-days and found Ruben's mail and presentation today, that is very surprising.
I just answered to his straw polls and my name is listed in his presentation, saying, hey these people answered "no" to my questions.
Also "abstain" is just "abstain" just because I am not confident to say "yes". Is it a violation to something?
Ruben, Stop doing this.
Bob, Is this allowed to list up people in the official presentation just because we say no (moreover just abstain)?
I apologize if may saying violates IEEE rules because I'm not a native.
Thank you.
Ichiro
On 2021/08/06 6:25, Rubén Pérez-Aranda wrote:
Dear all,
I reviewed the results of my straw polls of August 3rd 802.3cz AdHoc meeting, which have been published in the minutes.
In general, I understand the abstains due to lack of expertise and the abstains for being neutral, provided that these abstains
are not transformed with no reason in negative votes in the corresponding future motions.
However, I do not understand abstains based on the necessity of more information, because every question asked
during my contributions were answered by me, and for some of the baseline proposals even no questions were received.
On the other hand, I did not receive any opposition against the proposals of BER test mode, loopback modes and EEE. I would like
to understand the negative votes and solve the technical reasons behind.
For the 50G PCS/PMA proposal, we had several discussions and additional contribution was presented by me giving answers to
not asked questions.
You should understand that is impossible for me to imagine which kind of information is missed by you if no questions
are asked.
The following participants are requested to send specific questions so that I can provide the additional information that is missed
by abstainers and that is needed by negative voters to understand the proposals.
I will be pleased to elaborate specific contributions to address the questions.
Straw poll 1: BER test mode proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Nozomi Tsuzaki, Independent
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
Straw poll 2: Loopback modes proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
Straw poll 3: EEE proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Negative votes:
* Ichiro Ogura PETRA
Straw poll 4: 50 Gb/s PCS/PMA proposal
* Abstains that need more information:
* Richard Pitwon Resolute Photonics
* Michikazu Aono - Yazaki
* Masato Shiino, FURUKAWA
* Yasuhiro Hyakutake, Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel
* Nobuyasu Araki YAZAKI
* Tomohiro Kikuta Adamant Namiki Precision Jewel Co., Ltd.
* Manabu Kagami - NITech
* Taiji Kondo, MegaChips
* Hideki Isono Fujitsu Optical Components
* Takehiro Hayashi HAT Lab - independent
* Negative votes:
* Takeo Masuda [OITDA/PETRA]
* Shigeru Kobayashi, AIO Core
* Hideki Goto Toyota
Thank you and best regards,
Rubén Pérez-Aranda
CTO at KDPOF
_____________________________________________________________
Knowledge Development for POF, S.L.
A: Ronda de Poniente 14 2º CD, 28760, Tres Cantos (Madrid), Spain
P: +34 91 804 33 87 Ext:110
M: +34 689 319 866
E: rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:rubenpda@xxxxxxxxx>
W: https://www.kdpof.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-OMEGA list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-OMEGA&A=1
|