| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Geoff, Thanks for your comments and suggestions. FYI,
I started to add line numbers prior to issuing these ballots, but since the
originals approved for ballot did not have them, I decided not to for now. Next
time I submit documents for balloting approval I will include line numbers at
the time of submittal. I have tried using our balloting tools in
the past. When I tried, some people used them, some people did not, and
some developed their own format. It was such a mess and cost me so much
extra time that I gave up. Using a balloting form also constrains the
spontaneous dialogue we often have over each others comments. The current
format allows all the dialogue to be captured which I feel would often be lost
if a formal ballot form were used. I see that as a big negative. And
for ballots on the scale that we do (15 people or so) I’m not sure a
ballot form has much of an advantage over e-mails. For now, e-mail responses with the title
of the ballot being commented in the subject line is the proper format (as you
have provided). We will compile all relevant content from such e-mails
into a comments list. In your e-mail, simply reference the clause number
of concern and the existing text in ballot, and comment or state what changes
you desire. I find it’s not that hard to just cut and paste from
the ballot to the e-mail. And frankly this is what we’ve been doing
for the last several years so hopefully everyone is accustom to it. When
developing a proposed resolution to the ballot we will parse the comments and
develop the proposed resolution based on those comments. Anyway, sorry for any inconvenience.
I’m open to trying a balloting tool again if I get a commitment from the
EC to actually use the tool. Mat Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. From: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortel.com] Mat- "WG meetings shall not be scheduled to coincide
with the time of the tutorial programs." should be changed to: "Meetings of TAGs, Working Groups, or their
sub-groups shall not be scheduled to overlap with the time of the tutorial
programs." On page 2 where it is proposed to remove the text that says: "In the vote tally, Approve votes (and Abstain
votes) include those votes that were initially Disapprove where the voter has
accepted the resolution of the voter's comments and changed the vote to Approve
(or Abstain). Disapprove votes include only those votes where some comment
resolutions have not been accepted by the voter and the voter continues to
disapprove." I object to the removal, further I would like to add
text that requires that any motion not accompanied by the required data will be
removed from the agenda. Any approval granted to a motion that does not have
the required data shall be reversed. Sincerely, Dear EC members, |