Frankly, I’m with Paul. My
experience is many people don’t comment unless they have to. If
something has too many flaws to count, then I can accept a comment which says so,
and perhaps details two or three big ones. And the response can be rough
without a specific solution. So I don’t accept it is purely a
question of formatting. Unless you hold a stick over their heads some
people simply won’t make time to participate. I think Paul’s
suggestion might require some refinement. But I think we want to put some
teeth into the rules concerning ballot responses. We have it on the WG
level. We should have something on the EC level.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O
[mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:30
PM
To: Geoff Thompson; Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email
vote statistics
Paul, I’m
with Geoff on this one. For some issues, there are so many things wrong
that writing out comments on all of those is a non-productive process, and DNV
is the reasonable alternative.
If you want to get better
return rates on ballots you need to spend more time up front on crafting the
text being balloted and responding to discussion comments. Rewriting a
document by ballot comments is a very inefficient process and should be avoided
at all cost. Circulation of drafts for comments and responding to inputs
received is more efficient and less redundant, prior to going for a
ballot. Ballots where most folks can vote Approve without comments always
get good returns.
Thanx,
Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003
7:43 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email
vote statistics
Paul-
At 12:16 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC members,
Between
the March 2003 and July 2003 plenary sessions the EC had 7 electronic ballots
(the rules ballots are not counted in these stats), giving a total of 7*13=91 vote
'opportunities', 19 of which were DNVs. Almost 21% of the vote
opportunities were not utilized. We can do better than this. I
think a 90% return rate is a reasonable goal. Please cast your vote
during email ballots, it is your responsibility to your WG/TAG and the LMSC.
Addtionally,
at the Novebmer plenary session, I plan to request that the EC to empower me to
suspend the EC email ballot voting rights of any member who does not cast a
vote in 2 out of the last 3 email ballots.
I assert that any action by you to do so would infringe my right to vote
DISAPPROVE by inaction.
We have DNV in the denominator for a reason.
Regards,
--Paul
Nikolich
Geoff