Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes
Roger, Carl,
thanks for responding. Thanks also Stuart, although this
reply is not directly a response to your email.
I have actually never heard of the use of roll call votes to
distinguish between voters and non-voters prior to Geoff's
email and as I responded to him, I believe Robert's
already has options for the chair to deal with that
situation and certainly groups such as dot16 have
found other ways. So in my view, this change is not about
that issue.
As to your contention about block voting not being prohibited
I believe it is an issue of imprecise language and interpretation
of such.
I agree with you that the rules do not mention block voting.
They do mention domination by an organization. It is my
contention that when people speak of block voting, it is
shorthand for "domination by an organization". The term organization
is not defined, this is KEY. This allows 802 the latitude to
determine what constitutes an organization, it need not
be restricted to a single corporate entity.
As you point out, 5.1.4.4 e) gives the chair the
responsibility to determine this and go to the SEC. The
rules change provides the minority with an option to
determine this if the chair is unwilling to call a roll
call vote.
This IMO is one of the reasons that Robert's suggests that
every group have a rule that allows the minority to get a
roll call vote, since the chair does not have the power
to do so under Roberts.
I look forward to the CR session, it should be fun.
cheers,
mike
Roger B. Marks wrote:
> I vote Disapprove.
>
> We have heard about the use of roll-call votes to separate voters from non-voters. Each WG has a need to handle this problem, and each has a long tradition of solving it effectively. In 802.16, for instance, we use voting tokens. For us, this a more efficient solution than roll-call voting.
>
> We have also heard that a forced roll-call voting is somehow tied to "block voting." However, "block voting" is not prohibited, or even mentioned, in the P&P. The P&P simply gives the WG Chair the authority to "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and, if so, treat that organizations' vote as one (with the approval of the Executive Committee)." Since the Chair makes the procedural decisions, the Chair already has the power to order a roll call vote if that will assist his or her determination or help prepare supporting material for presenting a case to the EC.
>
> Since I see no need for this P&P change, I am, by default, opposed. We seem to have reached a general consensus that our P&P should be less, not more, specific. It was also my understanding that we (informally) agreed to operate under a rules-change moratorium while Mat revises the P&P format. Because of that moratorium, we put even high-priority rules changes on the back burner.
>
> Finally, there is the question of the possible negative impact of this rules change. I certainly see such potential. The proposal would allow 20% of the membership to force a group to spend up to 20% of its time counting the roll (not to mention the time administering the motion to initiate the roll call vote). That is, in my view, an unacceptable inefficiency of process. And the real cost to the group's progress can be much closer to 100%. For instance, in 802.16, we finalize the group's progress for the week in a dense Closing Plenary. Giving up 20% of the Closing Plenary to roll calls could cost us much more than 20% of our week's progress.
>
> The WG Chair has a lot of responsibility and can't carry it out without the ability to manage the agenda. This P&P change would make the agenda even more unpredictable. It could also easily backfire and result in a WG being "dominated by an organization" whose tactic is to force roll-call votes.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>>Dear EC Members,
>>
>>as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
>>EC meeting I am starting a (35 day) ballot on
>>the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
>>to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
>>(and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
>>earlier).
>>
>>I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
>>during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
>>the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
>>to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
>>
>>The language you will find enclosed is different (and
>>I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
>>
>>1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
>>(less of a run-on sentence).
>>2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
>>by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
>>motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
>>be used as a delaying tactic.
>>
>>Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
>>sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
>>was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
>>has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
>>but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
>>
>>cheers,
>>
>>mike
>>--
>>Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
>>Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
>>Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>>3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>>voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
>>
>>
>>Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revisi 1.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (0023B7AD)
>>Attachment converted: TiDrive:802_RollCall_P&P.pdf (PDF /CARO) (0023B7AE)
>
>
>
--
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991