Re: [802SEC] SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot o n SEC electronic balloting - Closed
All,
It has occurred to me since responding to this ballot that we speak of
"letter ballots" as if everyone knows what they are, but we never to say
what distinguishes a letter ballot from other ballots not taken at a
meeting. In days of olde, a ballot was a letter ballot because it sent
by (snail) mail. But in these days of electronic balloting, the
distinction between electronic letter ballots and other electronic
ballots is not so clear.
Seems to me that what distinguishes a letter ballot from other ballots
is that a DISAPPROVE vote on a letter ballot MUST be accompanied by
comments stating why the individual voted DISAPPROVE and what must be
changed in the balloted material to convert the vote to APPROVE.
What am I missing?
Thanks,
wlq
mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I know this is a little late, but there did not seem to be a rush.
>
> The final result on the ballot are:
>
> 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 DIS
> -------------------------------------------------------
> totals: 0 APP 11 DIS 1 ABS 2 DNV
>
> 10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS. Ballot FAILS.
>
> I will of course be working towards a comment resolution session for Sunday in Hawaii. Comments received are provided below. Please let me know if anyone sees any errors.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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
>
> Comments to Date:
> =======================================================================================
>
> jimlans@mobilian.com Mon 10/28/2002 2:53 PM
>
> I also vote to disapprove - BillQ's comments seemed especially on the mark
> to me.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.