RE: +++ Ballot: Response to IEEE-SA Balloting Survey
Colleagues,
I do approve with the following suggestions for improvement as given in the
context below.
---------------
Vic Hayes
Lucent Technologies Nederland B.V.
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC +2 in summer time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
e-mail: vichayes@lucent.com
http://wavelan.com/
> ----------
> From: Jim Carlo[SMTP:jcarlo@ti.com]
> Sent: 10 November 2000 9:00 AM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: +++ Ballot: Response to IEEE-SA Balloting Survey
> Importance: High
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> SEC OFFICIAL EMAIL BALLOT 802.0/10Nov2000
> Issue Date: 10Nov2000 Closing Date: 17Nov2000
> Moved By: Jim Carlo
> Move: Submit the following Balloting System Comments
>
> The invitations to ballot should be sent only by the means by which the
> ballot will be conducted
VH--> the argument that in case it is for electronic ballot, we are sure the
address of the balloter is correct.
> The balloting center should stop using paper based systems for
> communication
> with its customers
VH--> This is inconsistent with the argument below that there are reasons
to continue some paper ballots.
> IEEE-SA should not MANDATE that all Sponsor Ballots be conducted through
> the
> balloting service:
> +IEEE 802 does support encouragement for all groups to use the IEEE
> Ballot center.
> +There may be circumstances where a different ballot approach is
> appropriate.
>
> Codify in writing procedures for Electronic Balloting, in particular
> define
> all critical path dependencies external to the balloting service.
> +Check list for submitters
> +Check list for IEEE-SA staff
>
> The IEEE-SA balloting service should set up metrics on their performance
> and
> report these metrics at the quarterly standards board meeting
>
> Turn-around time (recommend a 24-hour goal) for ballot service processes
> (e.g., time from sponsor approval to invitation, time from balloting
> closing
> to reporting of results )
> +Number of ballots conducted, and other statistics.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Notes:
>
> 1) This response was developed by Tony Jeffree, Geoff Thompson in adhoc.
>
> 2) The Ballot Survey Solicitation was:
>
> Dear Standards Developer:
>
> A motion was unanimously approved at the 21 September IEEE-SA Standards
> Board meeting to address two important issues regarding balloting. The
> motion that was approved would:
> 1) encourage all IEEE balloting groups to utilize the IEEE balloting
> center, and
> 2) move toward the exclusive use of electronic balloting
>
> To date, there have been more than 30 successful electronic ballots
> conducted by the IEEE balloting center. The service provided is
> convenient, reliable and valid, and saves both time and money.
> Invitations to ballot are still done by mail, and this step will be the
> next piece of the process to be "electronicized".
>
> Today, approximately 99% of all ballots conducted are administered by the
> IEEE balloting center. Based upon the IEEE Balloting Center's excellent
> service and their commitment to expediency, the IEEE balloting staff would
> like ALL balloting groups to come under the IEEE balloting center
> umbrella.
>
> A "chat area" has been set up on the web for the purpose of stating your
> views and opinions on the two issues stated above.
>
> Please go to:
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/cgi-bin/netforum/stdsbd/a/1
> Click on the topic "Feedback Related to Balloting Center Usage and
> Electronic Balloting"
> To post a new message, click "New" (button on left-hand side)
> To view a message, click on the message
> To reply to a message, click "Reply" at the bottom of the page
>
> We look forward to receiving your comments by 31 October.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Don Heirman
> Chair, IEEE-SA Standards Board
>