Ichiro,
I do not see a “moral hazard” nor do I see anything threatening, especially not “very dangerous-a kind threatening”. You will have to provide better detail of what is the “hazard” or what is threatening. Yes there is “pressure” to respond to his plea for more information, but I don’t understand why I should consider that inappropriate.
If you look at https://www.ieee802.org/3/ballots/ballot_returns.pdf, and scroll down to “Grow, Robert” you will see me identified by name as not having voted on P802.3cg Working Group ballot. While that is a little embarrassing to me personally, that is not the purpose of that list, it is there to help me understand if I am in jeopardy of losing my 802.3 member (voter) status because of failure to respond. If anyone is similarly embarrassed by yellow boxes following their name, so be it. If anyone with yellow on the right side of the page feels “pressure” to vote, so be it. Each of us that are 802.3 members have a responsibility to vote on WG ballots.
Respectfully, if you haven’t been identified as a No voter before this, you have not voted No on an IEEE 802 project.
When a roll call vote is taken, I am clearly identified by name with my vote. Currently our rules for conducting TF business via teleconference require either unanimous consent or a roll caller 802.3 voting members.
I was clearly identified as a No voter in ~1983 on P802.5 (my first IEEE standards ballot if I remember correctly).
If you go into the archive, you can see my comments by name that I submitted ~1997 on P802.3z, and with some work you can see who voted No (a comment labeled as TR or ER indicating a No vote).
In ~1997 we didn’t post files of unsatisfied negatives, but we have done so in 802.3 for many years (lists of negative votes and comments are in fact required for advancing a project to SA ballot or to submit to RevCom). You should be prepared for the file of unsatisfied negatives to be displayed in an 802.3 WG meeting. I know display of negative voters and comments is frequently request during EC meetings when considering advancing a project to RevCom.
When I vote No, I am always identifiable by name as a No voter on those projects. Next week, you will be able to look at the revision ballot comments file and know because of my TR and ER comments that my vote is No. Most importantly, though, I have provided other 802.3 voters hopefully clear statements why I voted No and what I specifically want to be changed in the draft that would allow me to vote Yes. Why is it not appropriate to expect similar clarity during the consensus process?
—Bob
Dear Bob, I understand we can open the results by name what we cooperate in
the TF. I still don't understand we can freely use it in the second use.
I thought the presentation by Ruben is close to the moral hazard. I am not related to Ruben's affiliation, but imagine if my
customer do the same thing. I understand Ruben wants to go forward
but the conduct he took is very dangerous-a kind threatening. He
clearly mentioned the aim was to give pressure who answered
abstain and no. I understand IEEE is individual-base, but It's my first time in
long participation that my name is listed because of voting "no". As Richard mentioned, this kind of conversation has been taken
place in the background as a common rule.
I also work hard to contribute to TF, but this time this rule is
not acceptable.
Regards, Ichiro
On 2021/08/18 2:51, ROBERT GROW wrote:
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
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
|