RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on WG electronic voting
My vote is still pending awaiting comments from my WG.
WARNING!!! We are starting down the same "rat hole" that stopped any change
in 1999. As I recall, when we started hacking up the text to open the WG
electronic ballot process for purposes other than electronic letter ballots,
every proposed alteration created additional conflicts with other provisions
in the rules, and approval decreased. I think most of the problems stemmed
from conflicts on eballot periods, and lack of clarity as to how an
electronic motion is made, seconded (?), etc. If we want to codify
electronic WG motions and voting in the LMSC rules, I expect many more
changes will be required than what has been proposed by the other Bob's
below.
I would recommend that we first legitimize our current electronic processes
before trying again to enable and fine tune additional business via
electronic means (i.e., make those other changes a separate rules change
proposal). Personally, I need to get my taxes done before I spend any time
revisiting the more complex proposals.
Some comments:
1. The addition of "technical" to the first line of 5.1.4.2 was to
eliminate a conflict with other parts of the rules. The 75% threshold
already in 5.1.4.2.1 was clearly only to apply to technical decisions.
Reading all the rules with current text will show an inconsistency on the
approval threshold for a procedural motion at a meeting.
2. The essence of the proposed change is to allow electronic means for a
letter ballot. (The added sentence to 5.1.4.2.2.) In that context, Bob
O'Hara's change #1 is not necessary. It is a letter ballot if electronic or
written if we adopt the proposed change. This change was felt necessary
because the word "postmark" implies a snail mail ballot process (and the
different ballot period recognizes the improved delivery time of electronic
means).
3. The rules already allow the Working Group Chair discression to submit
other matters to letter ballot (5.1.4.2.2). Bob Love, if you want anything
other than an electronic letter ballot, we are heading down the "rat hole".
Bob O'Hara, could we please make your #3 a seperate rule change effort for a
new section as you offer.
4. Bob O'Hara and Geoff. I don't recall if "quorum" comments were part of
the discussions three years ago. The proposed text makes no change to
existing letter ballot thresholds (again, it only allows a letter ballot to
be electronic). The proposed text will not do anything to change what is
currently allowed other than: a) decrease the letter ballot period to 35
days when conducted electronically, b) lower cost and resource barriers for
submitting other matters to letter ballot.
5. It is possible within WG rules to tighten things up (e.g., 802.3 rules
include a 30% abstention threshold).
6. Recent activities indicate that we need to improve our language on
quorums. To that end, my preference would be a separate rules change for
the WG quorum text. As part of that change, I would extract the quorum
sentences from 5.1.4.2.1 into a new subsection 5.1.4.2.3 and work on them
independent from enabling electronic letter ballots.
Something about this change engenders scope creap. From the comments so far
we have desire to extend scope to: define electronic motions, change the
definition of quorum, add an abstention threshold
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:49 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, certainly once we open up balloting to electronic ballots I assume that
they could be used for purposes other than voting on document drafts. It is
for these other drafts that I would propose the change. The wording for
voting on document drafts should be generalized to include electronic
balloting so that we do not have to separately spell out what the rules for
voting are electronically on those drafts, as distinct from voting in a
letter ballot.
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: "'Robert D. Love'" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>; <p.nikolich@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: 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-----