RE: +++ Ballot: Response to IEEE-SA Balloting Survey
Please note that the notes will NOT be submitted to the IEEE-SA. The only
thing that will be submitted is between ++++ and this will be on behalf of
802. I used the notes to provide some additional information for SEC ballot
(I did not want to take all the credit for the response), and sorry for the
Geoff, I have changed your vote to approve based on the above.
Jim Carlo(email@example.com) Cellular:1-214-693-1776 Voice&Fax:1-214-853-5274
TI Fellow, Networking Standards at Texas Instruments
Chair, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6 Telecom and Info Exchange Between Systems
Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 6:43 PM
To: 802.0 reflector
Subject: RE: +++ Ballot: Response to IEEE-SA Balloting Survey
I seem to have not received the original e-mail for this ballot.
My vote is disapprove because of the notes. This response should have the
backing of the entire SEC. With the note that says:
"1) This response was developed by Tony Jeffree, Geoff Thompson in
...it won't have that. The Ad Hoc was open and duly authorized. The results
were put before the SEC. We should not do anything that lets the SA think
this is just Geoff & Tony (even though Denise is listening in).
I will change my vote to APPROVE if note 1 is removed or suitably altered.
Vic is mistaken that we are arguing for the continuation of paper ballots.
The "other circumstances" mentioned was to get outside balloting services
At 11:23 PM 11/10/00 +0100, Hayes, Vic (Vic) wrote:
>From: "Hayes, Vic (Vic)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "802.0 reflector" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: +++ Ballot: Response to IEEE-SA Balloting Survey
>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:23:48 +0100
>I do approve with the following suggestions for improvement as given in
>the context below.
>Lucent Technologies Nederland B.V.
>3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
>Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC +2 in summer time)
>FAX: +31 30 609 7556
> > ----------
> > From: Jim Carlo[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > 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
>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
> > IEEE balloting center. Based upon the IEEE Balloting Center's
> > service and their commitment to expediency, the IEEE balloting staff
> > 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