RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting
Bob,
I would consider such an addition. However, I think that this would require
that we describe voting by electronic means in a section of its own, since
there are now exceptions only for electronic ballots that do not apply to
letter ballots.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
electronic voting
Bob, for email balloting, I believe that "Lack of Time" is a real and valid
reason for not voting on some of the issues. Would you consider allowing
"other than "lack of technical expertise."" to change to "other than "lack
of technical expertise" or "lack of time"", in your proposed text change?
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@bstormnetworks.com>
To: <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
electronic voting
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I vote DISAPPROVE until the following additions are made to the text
> to be changed:
>
> 1) In an earlier email exchange I suggested that non-returned email
> ballots be considered exactly the same as non-returned letter
> ballots, i.e., that they negatively affect the non-balloter's voting
> status. Please change the first sentence in 5.1.3.3 to the
> following:
>
> "Membership may be lost if any two of the last three Working Group
> letter or email ballots are not returned, or are returned with an
> abstention other than "lack of technical expertise.""
>
> 2) Contrary to Geoff's position, I would like to see a minimum return
> requirement as it is currently stated in 5.1.4.2.1, without requiring
> that non-returned ballots be considered negative votes. Counting
> non-returned ballots as anything at all makes absolutely no sense to
> me. It means that someone who is no longer participating, who has
> retired, who has moved into another area of work, possibly even
> someone who is dead, can affect the outcome of an electronic ballot
> simply by not replying. They can continue to do this until their
> voting status is lost as described in 5.1.3.3. Last I checked, the
> Daly's of Chicago were not running the LMSC.
>
> What I would like to see is a minimum abstention requirement, like
> that for sponsor ballots. Please add to 5.1.4.2.1 "Non-returned
> ballots on votes by electronic means are not counted as either yea,
> nea, or abstain. On votes by electronic means, a vote is not valid
> if more than 30% of the ballots returned are abstentions."
>
> 3) I believe that the change to the title of section 5.1.4.2.1 has
> the unfortunate effect of limiting voting by electronic means to only
> technical matters. As such, it would prevent a WG from voting by
> electronic means on any procedural matters, such as sending liaison
> letters that were not available by the close of a meeting. Is this
> the intent of the rules change? If not, perhaps there should be a
> separate section on voting by electronic means, as there is for
> voting by letter ballot.
>
> -Bob
>
> Bob O'Hara
> Black Storm Networks
> 250 Cambridge Avenue
> Suite 200
> Palo Alto, CA 94306
>
> Phone: +1 650 617 2935
> Mobile: +1 408 218 4025
> Fax: +1 810 277 4718
> email: bob@bstormnetworks.com
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBPKi8uTuemr5DGCQrEQJA8QCgnJ+erQwmlZ9lqdwRJQvM5q8+XrwAnjU8
> nn4pmncNRs0pN55YEOBOr+5I
> =Yw9D
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----