RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on W G electronic voting
Like Buzz, I think Roger's comments make a lot of sense
and I also vote DISAPPROVE, pending acceptable revisions.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:18 PM
> To: 'Matthew Sherman'; 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
> Cc: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org'; 'Geoff Thompson'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++
> Ballot on W
> G electronic voting
>
>
>
> Mat, I think Roger has done an excellent job of proposing
> changes to
> address the concerns which have been expressed to date and
> which appear to
> be necessary to garner an affirmative vote on this matter,
> while carefully
> avoiding Bob Grow's slippery slope of the infinite change
> loop. I will vote
> Disapprove, with the same comments as Roger, and suggest that
> you might be
> wise to withdraw and redraft the motion on that basis to get
> this matter
> moving forward again. We DO all want to get past this one to
> get us back in
> synch with our rules.
>
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> Ph: (425) 865-2443
> Fx: (425) 865-6721
> Email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:39 PM
> To: Matthew Sherman; 'stds-802-sec@ieee.org'
> Cc: 'p.nikolich@ieee.org'; 'Geoff Thompson'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++
> Ballot on W G
> electronic voting
>
>
> Well Everyone,
>
> This ballot closes on June 8, 2002 @ 12 midnight EDT. That
> means there are
> 4 days left. I have been sending out weekly reminders to try
> and get out
> the vote. But aside from Roger (Thanks for your comments and
> response) I
> have not seen any discussions on this matter in several weeks.
>
> The vote tally as of 6/4/02 is:
>
> 00 Paul Nikolich DNV
> 01 Geoff Thompson DIS
> 02 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
> 03 Bob O'Hara DIS
> 04 Bill Quackenbush DNV
> 05 Tony Jeffree DNV
> 06 Bob Grow APP
> 07 Stuart Kerry DNV
> 08 Bob Heile DNV
> 09 Roger Marks DIS
> 10 Mike Takefman DNV
> 11 Carl Stevenson DNV
> total: 1 APP 3 DIS 0 ABS 8 DNV
>
> 6 APPROVES required to PASS. Ballot Currently FAILING (1
> APP, 3 DIS, 0 ABS,
> 8 DNV)
>
>
> Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting
> above. Note that
> I was a little unsure from the comments if Mike had formally
> voted yet or
> not, but for now I have him as not voting.
>
> Personally I'd like to seen some kind of e-voting rules
> change passed and am
> concerned with the post mortem. DNV's don't help me much
> because there are
> no opinions expressed, so it is difficult to rework things to
> pass a motion
> on the next ballot. I have attached all the comments to
> date, and would
> appreciate if those who have not voted review those comments,
> cast their
> votes and express an opinion if relevant. Simply not voting
> (while it may
> act as a DIS) will not enable your concerns to be addressed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mat
>
>
> Matthew Sherman
> Technology Consultant
> Communications Technology Research
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> Room B255, Building 103
> 180 Park Avenue
> P.O. Box 971
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Per Paul's request, I will be tabulating the results of this
> Ballot, and
> working to "get out the vote". The vote formally closes at
> June 8, 2002 12
> midnight EDT. We still have about 3 weeks, but we only have
> only had 3
> people formally vote to date. Here is the current vote Talley:
>
> Vote Talley as of 6/4/02
>
> 00 Paul Nikolich DNV
> 01 Geoff Thompson DIS
> 02 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
> 03 Bob O'Hara DIS
> 04 Bill Quackenbush DNV
> 05 Tony Jeffree DNV
> 06 Bob Grow APP
> 07 Stuart Kerry DNV
> 08 Bob Heile DNV
> 09 Roger Marks DIS
> 10 Mike Takefman DNV
> 11 Carl Stevenson DNV
> total:
>
> 6 APPROVES required to PASS. Ballot Currently FAILING ( 1
> APP, 3 DIS, 8
> DNV, 0 ABS)
>
>
> Please let me know if you see any errors in the accounting
> above. Note that
> I was a little unsure from the comments if Mike had formally
> voted yet or
> not, but for now I have him as not voting.
>
> We had some lively discussion on this ballot earlier on. A
> synopsis of the
> comments to date is provided below. However there has been
> no real activity
> on this ballot recently. If people have made up their minds,
> I encourage
> them to express a formal vote. If not, I encourage them to
> express their
> concerns so that others may consider them, and we may
> continue to debate the
> issue during the remaining 3 weeks.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman
> PTSM - Communications Technology Research
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> Room B255, Building 103
> 180 Park Avenue
> P.O. Box 971
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
> ==============================================================
> ============
> Summary of comments to date:
>
>
> Ballot Comments:
>
> Roger B. Marks [marks@boulder.nist.gov] Tue 6/4/2002 2:18 PM
>
> The rules currently provide two type of voting in WGs: (1) Voting at
> Meetings, and (2) Voting by Letter Ballot. The proposed rules change
> tries to develop the electronic voting procedure as an extension of
> "Voting at Meetings". I see a lot of problems with this, mainly
> related to the formation and amendment of the motion. It's hard to
> extend the checks and balances from the meeting room to the email
> reflector.
>
> Instead, I think we should address the issue by modifying the second
> voting alternative: the Letter Ballot. We understand Letter Ballots,
> and the rules to support them already exist. Furthermore, the current
> rules already distinguish between two kinds of Letter Ballots: (a)
> submitting a draft to Sponsor Ballot, and (b) "other matters"... "at
> the discretion of the Working Group Chair". So we can simply and
> effectively address the problem at hand simply by specifying a
> different duration for the "other matters".
>
> My current suggestion is simply to change:
>
> "The letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the
> time of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot."
>
> to the following:
>
> "For a decision to submit a draft to the Sponsor Ballot Group, the
> letter ballot response time must be at least forty days from the time
> of "sending" postmark to the postmark of the returned ballot. The
> letter ballot may also be conducted by electronic means; in this
> case, the response time is reduced to thirty days. For recirculation
> ballots, and for letter ballots not related to the submission of
> draft standards, the response time must be at least fifteen days, or
> ten days when conducted by electronic means."
>
> [I've tossed in a shorter time for recirculation ballots, since we
> don't define that elsewhere.]
>
> Also, in 5.1.3.4 ("The rights of the Working Group members include
> the following:"), change
>
> d) To vote by mail on drafts to be submitted to the Sponsor
> Ballot Group.
>
> to
>
> d) To vote in Working Group Letter Ballots.
>
>
> Also, in 5.1.3.3, change:
>
> Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
> ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention other
> than "lack of technical expertise."
>
> by inserting the words in brackets:
>
> Membership may be lost if two of the last three Working Group letter
> ballots [regarding draft standards] are not returned, or are returned
> with an abstention other than "lack of technical expertise."
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Mon 4/1/2002 9:41 AM
>
> 5.1.4.2.1 Voting on technical motions at Meeting
> ...
> The Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. ...
>
> This should be changed to "The Working Group Chair may vote
> at meetings
> or on electronic votes." OR
> "The Working Group Chair may vote on all motions" OR
> some wording with the same effect
>
> I will vote approve if the wording is improved.
>
> If others do not feel the original wording restricts the chair
> from voting on electronic motions I withdraw the comment and
> Approve.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>
> Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 12:31 PM
>
> The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression
> that if 51% of
> the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot
> is valid.
>
> That could be:
> 50% abstain
> 40% Approve
> 10% Disapprove
> And the measure would pass.
> I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
> I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters
> that should
> be decided in a meeting.
>
> If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are
> considered to be
> negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>
> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:11 PM
>
> 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?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:17 PM
>
> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Mon 4/1/2002 5:49 PM
>
> 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.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue 4/2/2002 8:28 PM
>
> 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) [pat_thaler@agilent.com] Wed
> 4/3/2002 2:56 PM
>
> 1) The most urgent matter is to legitimize the Voting by Letter ballot
> provisions for progressing drafts.
>
> As such, I note that there is still a whole in that the text
> still does not
> recognize a shorter ballot period for recirculation. I would
> like to see a
> statement added to the paragraph like: "These times do not apply to
> recirculation ballots." or "Recirculation ballots must be at
> least 15 days
> for postal ballots and 10 days for email."
>
> If working out the details of non-letter ballot email votes
> takes more time,
> then they should probably be split into separate rules change ballots.
>
> 2) Procedural - according to the text here, procedural
> motions don't exist
> at all. The chair decides procedural matters. (see 5.1.4.1) This is
> different from the practice in many (all?) of the working
> groups which do
> vote on procedural matters. The usual working group practice
> of majority
> vote on procedural matters doesn't seem to be in the LMSC
> rules at all.
>
> I also think the particular example Bob O'Hara raises of
> sending a liaison
> letter would be a technical vote in most cases because our
> liaison letters
> often contain technical material such as advising another
> group of a working
> group's opinion on a technical matter.
>
> I'm not sure what to do about procedural matters as some more
> minor ones are
> decided by chairs but substantive ones like setting times and
> places for
> interim meetings and affirming agendas are done by working
> group votes. One
> way to handle this would be for the LMSC rules to make the
> LMSC rules a bit
> more flexible on this point changing the first line of
> 5.1.4.1 "Procedural
> matters may be decided by the Chair of the Working Group or
> by a vote of the
> working group. The Working Group Chair decides which
> procedural matters
> should be voted upon using the guidance of the Working Group operating
> rules."
>
> 3) When motions are conducted at a meeting, there is an
> opportunity for
> people to discuss their points of view on the strengths and
> weaknesses of a
> motion before voting. There is also the ability to adjust the
> motion based
> upon that discussion. If email voting is to produce decisions of equal
> quality, then there needs to be a provision for discussion.
> (This is part of
> the rat hole, but it needs to be addressed or email votes
> should not be
> given an equal standing to meeting votes.)
>
> There isn't a Robert's Rules of Order for email motions so we
> need to create
> at least a minimal structure for them.
>
> Add a paragraph to 5.1.4.2.1
> When it is necessary to conduct a vote on a technical motion
> by electronic
> means, then the following procedure shall be followed. The
> Working Group
> Chair or Vice Chair shall send a notice to the Working group
> to initiate a
> discussion period on the proposed motion. Discussion shall
> use a means that
> allows working group members to observe and comment upon the
> discussion. At
> the end of the discussion period, the Working Group Chair or
> a Vice Chair
> shall post the final motion and open the balloting period.
> Working Group
> operating rules should provide guidance on the length of the
> discussion and
> ballot periods.
>
> 4) Abstentions - Working groups cover a large scope and not
> everyone feels
> able to have an opinion on everything. I hesitate to do
> something where an
> abstention equals a NO. If someone really doesn't have a
> clue, I don't want
> them to just cast a Yes vote because it is easy and they don't want to
> obstruct what they don't understand. Therefore, I prefer a
> separate limit on
> percentage of abstentions over putting the abstentions into
> the calculation
> % Yes votes. I wish there were two kinds of abstain - one for
> "I don't care
> about or understand this area and never will" and one for
> "I'm not ready to
> vote on this yet because I am undecided but I expect to have
> a position
> later." Because a lot of the latter kind of abstention
> usually indicates
> that the vote is on shaky ground but the former doesn't.
>
> 5) I don't see the relevance of the historical notes and I
> don't think one
> voter should be singled out as the cause of earlier non-passage.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 4/8/2002 2:21 PM
>
> I can agree with Bob's requests to separate the various issues into
> individual rules changes, if it is made absolutely clear that
> the current
> rule change proposal for voting by electronic means is as a
> substitution
> only for letter ballots on drafts. I want it very clear that
> voting by
> electronic means under this particular rule change is not for
> the conduct or
> ordinary working group business, including the ratification
> of work done at
> interim meetings with no quorum, or the posting of any other
> motion than the
> question to forward a WG draft to sponsor ballot with the
> requirement of
> technical comments to support a vote of "no". Any WG rules
> that are not
> consistent with this interpretation of the LMSC rules must be clearly
> indicated by the SEC to be invalid.
>
> I continue to vote DISAPPROVE until the clarifications above
> are included in
> the rule change proposal or until it is made clear that the
> rule change is
> limited as I describe above and there is not yet any
> authority for the WGs
> to conduct general business electronically. I do not want a
> repeat of the
> debacle after the January 802.11 interim meeting.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
> Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Fri 5/10/2002 8:23 PM
>
> Please note my email of 4/2 about the scope creep in
> recommendations by
> other's commenting on this ballot; and support for
> independent rules change
> items to address some of those concerns (plus one of my own).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================================
> ===========
> Preballot Comments:
>
> Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>
> a question from one of my people. What consitutes a quorum for an
> electronic vote (either motion or ballot).
>
> For example, this SEC rules change ballot marks a failure to vote
> as a vote against. Hence, one could argue there is no quorum
> requirement
> as all voters end up with either a no or whatever they
> actually responded
> with and 100% of the voters are counted.
>
> Another interpretation is similar to those of a meeting. Specifically
> the number of people who respond to the ballot as a yes or no
> or abstain
> must be greater than 50% of the voting members.
>
>
> Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>
> Mike, I believe 50% of the eligible voters voting YES, NO, or
> ABSTAIN, is a
> quorum for electronic balloting. See the 802.5 Working Group
> electronic
> balloting rules I posted on the 802.17 reflector which
> explicitly specify
> that.
>
>
> Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>
> The quorom for an electonic ballot is that 50% of the working
> group voting
> members must respond YES, NO or ABSTAIN. This is exactly the
> same as a
> quorum for any WG meeting that is not held during a plenary session.
>
>
> Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com]
>
> The confusing point was that your email indicated that
> for the current SEC motion a failure to vote was counted as a NO.
> I took a quick look at the rules and it is not clear to me why a
> fail to vote on an SEC motion is a no vote. Rather the rule 3.4.2.1
> appears to state that a majority of the voting SEC members must reply.
>
>
> Robert D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com]
>
> Mike, for SEC email ballots the eligible voters all have a
> very significant
> commitment to remain engaged and participate in the process.
> Therefore, the
> SEC electronic balloting rules call for motions to pass with
> >50% of ALL
> ELIGIBLE VOTERS. As a consequence, not voting on an SEC
> electronic ballot
> is equivalent to casting a NO vote.
>
> Since the ballot group for any of the Working Groups is so
> much larger, even
> getting 50% of the voters to respond is an effort. It would
> be a useless
> exercise to require Working Group e-mail ballots to have
> greater than 50% of
> the voting members cast a YES vote.
>
>
> Paul Nikolich [Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>
> The rules on voting for rules changes (3.6.5) require 2/3
> approval or ALL
> voting members on the SEC. Therefore, if you do not vote, you are
> effectively counted as a negative:
>
> Approval ratio = approves/(negatives + abstain + did not vote).
>
> Also for electronic balloting (not concerned with a rules
> change) 3.4.2.1,
> you require a majority of eligible voting SEC members.
> Again, the approval
> ratio puts ALL members of the SEC in the denominator.
>
> Therefore a quorum for SEC email ballots is 100% of the SEC
> voting members.
>
>
> Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com]
>
> I would like to suggest that a quorum for an electronic WG
> ballot should be
> 50% of the voting membership of the WG. I suggest this
> because all of the
> voting members will have received the email announcing the
> particular motion
> on which the vote is to take place. This means, to me, that
> all voting
> members are "present" and have heard the question placed
> before the WG, just
> as if they were standing in the room at a face to face meeting.
>
> Getting the voters to respond is simple, the rule should
> state that failure
> to return any 2 out of 3 electronic ballots results in loss of voting
> membership. This addition helps the WG in two respects.
> First it increases
> participation in the business of the WG. Second, it helps to
> rapidly prune
> the voting roster of inactive members, resulting in a lower
> number of voting
> members being required to reach a quorum.
>
>
> Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]
>
> I agree with Bob's rationale, as stated below,
> with the understanding that the 50% is the
> total of those voting Yes, No, and Abstain.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: 'Geoff Thompson'; 'Sherman, Matthew'
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
> WG electronic voting
>
>
> Geoff,
>
> FYI Mat and I have discussed this ballot and Mat has agreed
> to 'run this
> ballot'. This means he will: bug the SEC to return their
> ballot's on time,
> tally the votes, collect and collate the comments and
> supervise the comment
> resolution process.
>
> --Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
> WG electronic voting
>
>
> DISAPPROVE
>
> The text in 5.1.4.2.1 is not clear. It gives the impression
> that if 51% of
> the Working Group membership returns a ballot then the ballot
> is valid.
>
> That could be:
> 50% abstain
> 40% Approve
> 10% Disapprove
> And the measure would pass.
> I'm willing to have this sort of thing happen at a Plenary Meeting.
> I'm not willing to have it happen by letter ballot on matters
> that should
> be decided in a meeting.
>
> If the text is changed such that non-returned votes are
> considered to be
> negative on mail ballots then I will change my vote.
>
> Geoff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 07:04 AM 4/1/02 -0500, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >Dear SEC members,
> >
> >Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change
> letter ballot on
> WG
> >Electronic Voting. (Note this is a resend of the March 17,
> 2002 letter
> >ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because
> we did not
> >officially approve it for distribution until last night.
> Other than that
> it
> >is unchanged).
> >
> >Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the working
> group level.
> >
> >Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
> >
> >The ballot opens April 1, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12
> midnight EDT
> >(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to
> a DISAPPROVE
> >vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide
> email list as
> >well. WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please
> invite your WG
> >members to comment through you.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--Paul Nikolich
> >
> >Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
> >email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> >cell: 857.205.0050
> >mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
> >
> >
> >
>