Carl,
I agree it is better to solicit input
before making a motion. That is always true. But even in a WG
people sometimes come to the floor with a motion before it is adequately
socialized. The result is generally the same – failure of the
motion. So I don’t see what is different in that regard. The
key difference I see is the ability to amend a motion in response to criticism from
the floor. I think if that were fixed, then the process would be much
more useful. In my mind, perhaps the mover and seconder should be able to
retract the motion early if they see it will fail, and make in essence an
amended motion. What they would lose is time since they would need to
extend the response deadline. Regardless, because we have a quorum requirement
on e-mail votes (as with letter ballots in WG) I think we need to require a
response. If it were possible to take a vote without a quorum (as we
generally do on the floor), then I would be willing to do without requiring a
response.
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: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
[mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:23
AM
To: Tony Jeffree; Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew)
Cc: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com;
gthompso@nortelnetworks.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email
vote statistics
I agree with Geoff, Buzz,
and Tony.
I like the idea of
tracking e-mail ballots, and maybe even voting, on the web.
With no disrespect to
Mat, who I know is, and has been, working hard on
updates/corrections to
the P&P, I also agree with Buzz ... before something
goes to ballot, I think
it should be socialized and tweaked into some form of
consensus, so that when
it does go to ballot it stands a good chance of
passing. I
recognize that it's probably no easier to get/resolve comments
before a ballot than
during one, but at least it would save the frustration
of having a seemingly
never-ending series of ballots that fail, only to have
to re-work things and try
again ...
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree
[mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 1:49
AM
To: mjsherman@research.att.com
Cc: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com;
gthompso@nortelnetworks.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email
vote statistics
I agree with Geoff's position here.
However, I would also vote against such a move for reasons of priority. While
we remain in a situation where our current P&P fail to even adequately
identify our membership rules, I will vote against any attempts to add to our
list of pending rules changes.
Also, before we start raising the possibility of sanctions, let us explore
other possibilities, such as the suggestion Roger made a while back, to track
the progress of Email ballots on the Web, so that we can easily see what
ballots are outstanding and whether our vote has been registered.
Regards,
Tony
At 21:42 31/07/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
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
Regards,
Tony