RE: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on SEC electronic balloting
Mat,
I also vote to disapprove - BillQ's comments seemed especially on the mark
to me.
Best regards,
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Matthew
Sherman
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 1:38 PM
To: 'IEEE802'
Subject: RE: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot
on SEC electronic balloting
Hi Everyone,
I recognize in retrospect the instructions I gave may have been a bit hazy.
Midnight is probably a bad time to use as a cut off since it's on the date
line. I am leaving the ballot open till midnight tonight (10/28 going into
10/29) for any last minute responses. The results and comments to date are
provided below.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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
Current Voting Status (10/28 2 PM EST):
00 Paul Nikolich DIS
01 Geoff Thompson DNV
02 Matthew Sherman ABS
03 Buzz Rigsbee DIS
04 Bob O'Hara DIS
05 Bill Quackenbush DIS
06 Tony Jeffree DIS
07 Bob Grow DNV
08 Stuart Kerry DIS
09 Bob Heile DIS
10 Roger Marks DIS
11 Mike Takefman DIS
12 Carl Stevenson DIS
13 Jim Lansford DNV
-------------------------------------------------------
totals: 0 APP 9 DIS 1 ABS 4 DNV
10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS. Ballot is FAILing.
Comments to Date:
============================================================================
===========
Bob O'Hara [bob@bstormnetworks.com] Mon 10/28/2002
1:28 PM
For all the reasons stated to date, I also disapprove.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net] Mon 10/28/2002
12:12 PM
Comments against Section 3.4.2.1
================================
1) I continue to find the parentheses in the first sentence of
3.4.2.1
problematic. I propose that the sentence be changed to the following.
"The Chair or an Executive Committee member designated by the Chair
(normally the 1st Vice Chair) shall issue, tally the results and
determine the minimum duration of the ballot."
2) For greater clarity, I propose that the last two sentences of
3.4.2.1 be changed to the following.
"The person conducting the ballot may at their discretion extend the
duration of the ballot if a quorum has not been achieved by the
closing date set when the ballot was opened. The closing date may be
extended a maximum of three times with each extension being a maximum of
seven days."
Comments against Section 3.6.3
==============================
3) I continue to find the parentheses in the first sentence of 3.6.3
problematic. I propose that the beginning of the sentence be changed to
the following.
"An Executive Committee member designated by the Chair (normally a
Vice
Chair) shall distribute the proposed change ............."
4) The new third paragraph is problematic. The first sentence
belongs
with the second paragraph. The second sentence is a mystery to me as I
have no clue as to what is being referenced by the phrase "The time
after the current plenary".
I propose that the second paragraph of 3.6.3 be changed to the following.
"Concurrent with the distribution of the LMSC, an Executive
Committee
letter ballot shall be conducted with a closing date at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the next Plenary session if conducted by electronic
ballot or at least thirty (30) days prior to the next Plenary session if
conducted by physical ballot."
General comment
===============
4) I disagree with the comments of others that paper ballots should
not
be allowed. Paper ballots should be an available option if for some
bizarre reason they are needed. Therefore I would rather see a
statement to the effect that ballots are to be conducted by electronic
ballot unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Paul Nikolich [paul@yas.com] Thu 10/17/2002
11:41 AM
I vote disapprove for the following reasons:
1) I disagree with the concept of extending a ballot because quorum was
not met. If quorum is not met in the specified time, the ballot fails,
plain and simple.
2) Quorum should be defined as >50% response rate and required for a
ballot to be valid.
3) I don't see the need for the change to 3.6.3. The intent of closing
the ballot at least 30 days before the plenary is to give the ballot
holder time for ballot comment resolution. (Typically we do this the
Sunday before the plenary, but it could be done before that via email,
if the group was so motivated, and 30 days seems like a reasonable time
to work on ballot comment resolution.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Rigsbee, Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com] Wed 10/16/2002
4:30 PM
OK, I vote disapprove for the same reasons as Roger and Tony.
If we're going to fix it, let's really fix it to reflect reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Bob Heile [bheile@ieee.org] Thu
8/29/2002 12:18 PM
disapprove. ditto the comment thread
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
stuart.kerry@philips.com Wed
8/28/2002 3:59 PM
I'm sorry but my vote is also to Disapprove this motion on similar grounds
to Carl's sentiments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Wed
8/28/2002 3:30 PM
I also vote disapprove for the same reasons elaborated
by Tony and Roger.
Hopefully, at the next SEC meeting we can hammer this
out and get it right once and for all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Wed
8/28/2002 2:34 PM
Tony:
Thanks for seeing and pointing out what should have been obvious over the
years we have been working on electronic balloting. All "letter" ballots
should be electronic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Roger B. Marks [marks@boulder.nist.gov] Wed
8/28/2002 10:57 AM
I vote Disapprove.
Some general comments:
Before I can vote on rules changes, I need to see the current rules. The
rules on the web are dated March 2001.
Like Tony, I oppose tinkering with the rules without fixing them.
I agree with Tony that any change to the voting ought to delete the option
of paper voting.
The change to 3.4.2.1 talks about extending the duration of the ballot.
However, there is no language in the existing rules about how that duration
is set in the first place. It says only that someone will "determine the
minimum duration of the ballot". There is nothing in the rules about the
_maximum_ duration, which would be the _actual_ duration. So perhaps the
current rules already allow for an extension of the voting period.
The change talks about an extension "if a quorum is not achieved", but I
don't know what this means because the existing language doesn't say
anything about a quorum. It does say that approval requires a majority of
the members. Let's say that there are 13 SEC members and the vote is 6
approve, 1 disapprove. Motion fails for lack of a majority. But is 7 out of
13 votes a quorum? Who knows? If it's a quorum, then (according to the
proposed rule) the opportunity to extend doesn't apply.
Even if the language of the change is revised to both clarify the existing
rule and to accurately specify the new procedures, I might oppose it on
principle. My concern is that the process is like an automatic deadline
extension. I am afraid this will make it harder to get any ballot completed
promptly.
In the proposed change to 3.6.3, I have no idea of the meaning of the last
sentence: "The time after the current plenary by be reduced to 15 days as
well for an electronic ballot." [If "by" is replaced by "may", I still don't
get it.]
If we are going to tinker with 3.6.3, I don't see how we can overlook a huge
problem that has been glaring at us, which is this sentence: "The Executive
Committee Vice Chair, (or other Executive Committee member) designated by
the LMSC Chair, shall distribute the proposed change to all persons who have
attended the current Plenary Session or one of the preceding two Plenary
Sessions at least sixty (60) days prior to the next Plenary Session and
further; invite and collect comments for presentation to the Executive
Committee." WE DON'T DO THIS! Unless we change the rules, or unless we
change our habits, we will violate the rules every time we make a rules
change. [While we sometimes send a note to stds-802-all, this obviously
doesn't satisfy the rule literally, and it doesn't satisfy it in spirit
either].
I think that, as an SEC, we ought to put more homework into proposed rules
changes before they go to ballot. This would make for a more efficient
process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Wed
8/28/2002 6:25 AM
I agree with the intent of this change; however, I have to vote Disapprove,
as I see no reason why we would ever do anything other than an electronic
ballot, now or in the future. In other words, rather than fixing up the
text to deal with both paper and electronic ballots, I believe we should
fix up the text to remove paper ballots and to make it clear that all
balloting that we conduct from here on will be electronic.
Rationale: There is absolutely no point in incurring the expense &
administrative pain of paper balloting given that we have a better, more
efficient, and cheaper alternative in the form of electronic balloting. I
believe we will never conduct any more paper ballots in the future - I, for
one, would not vote to approve expenditure of LMSC funds on a paper ballot,
in the unlikely event of one being proposed, and I suspect I wouldn't be
the only Exec member with that view. Therefore, we shouldn't complicate our
rules by trying to accommodate two mechanisms where one is all that we
actually need.