| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
[GOT] Response in red.
Thanks Roger for this constructive proposal. I just have a few clarifications.
I interpret c) to indicate that at the start of the P802REVc ballot we will snapshot the voting lists of all 802 WGs. And then if an 802 WG member votes at any point (initial ballot or recircs) they will be identified in the reporting. Is that correct?
[GOT] we will snapshot the voting lists of each 802 WG
On the reporting in e) – is the intent to have one list and one set of percentages, or is the intent to have one list and multiple percentages (e.g., one for the 802.1 balloting group and another for all 802 or each WG) or is the intent to have a list and percentage indicated per WG?. I am fine with any combination, but the intent is not clear.
[GOT] It is the intent to have one list and one set of percentages for actual management of the ballot. In addition, the results per WG will be reported for the convenience and as an aid to insight for each WG chair and the EC as a whole.
Finally on d), is the intent to treat MBS comments as such mean the following:
[GOT] The 802 WG member’s vote is recorded. The balloter's WG is indicated for the convenience of EC members. The balloter's WG information has the same significance here as the balloter's affiliation.The 802 WG member’s agreement is required with resolution of an MBS comment. This is true to the same extent that it is for SA Ballot.The 802 WG member’s unsatisfied MBS comments are provided to the EC for information with a SA ballot motion. True.The 802 WG member (i.e., vote or MBS comments) is not part of the balloting group for vote tallying. No. The size of the ballot group for statistical purposes is the size of the 802.1 Ballot Group plus the number of votes cast from outside 802.1
Cheers,
Roger-
Good, I think we are done at this level.
Glenn-
I believe we need your take on it before we can move further.
Once we have Glenn, then I believe we need to move to an EC mail ballot.
Geoff
On Saturday, October 8, 2022, 11:21:32 AM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
Geoff,
Yes, that’s what I intended; I wanted to avoid the situation you describe.
(a) The ballot group will be the 802.1 WG members as of the ballot initiation.
(b) Everyone is entitled to comment in WG ballot.
(c) Anyone indicating, in a returned ballot, their single primary WG or TAG membership is eligible to submit a ballot indicating Approve/Dis/Abstain and may indicate comments as MBS.
-That membership (fixed at the start of the ballot) is subject to confirmation.
(d) Comment resolution will be conducted by 802.1 using their existing procedures. All comments marked MBS are treated as such.
(e) Ballot reporting will categorize all results per WG/TAG. In other words, we will see, for each WG/TAG, the votes, the comment stats, and the unresolved MBS. Ballot reporting will also include an all 802 roll-up of the results.
(f) An 802.1 WG request to forward for SA ballot will follow the usual process, including the required 75% approval among the ballot group, with the additional report details.
(g) The procedures will be documented in the ballot announcement, whose distribution will not be restricted.
Cheers,
Roger
On Oct 8, 2022, 12:11 PM -0600,
thompson@ieee.org, wrote:
Roger-
That will work for me.
I have one further concern. It regards your wording of item (c).
The inclusion and use of the term "single" is confusing.
It could be interpreted several ways, e.g.
- If a person indicates a voting membership in more than one WG or TAG, their vote is is disqualified.
- If a person has a voting membership in more than one WG or TAG, they can submit a valid vote through each group.
(Bad idea, they are still only one member of 802. One member, one vote)
I believe that this can be fixed by substituting the words"their single primary" for "a single" in item (c).
Best regards,
Geoff
On Saturday, October 8, 2022, 08:03:02 AM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
Geoff,
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve tacked your new sentence onto (e).
(a) The ballot group will be the 802.1 WG members as of the ballot initiation.
(b) Everyone is entitled to comment in WG ballot.
(c) Anyone indicating, in a returned ballot, a single WG or TAG membership is eligible to submit a ballot indicating Approve/Dis/Abstain and may indicate comments as MBS.
-That membership (fixed at the start of the ballot) is subject to confirmation.
(d) Comment resolution will be conducted by 802.1 using their existing procedures. All comments marked MBS are treated as such.
(e) Ballot reporting will categorize all results per WG/TAG. In other words, we will see, for each WG/TAG, the votes, the comment stats, and the unresolved MBS. Ballot reporting will also include an all 802 roll-up of the results.
(f) An 802.1 WG request to forward for SA ballot will follow the usual process, including the required 75% approval among the ballot group, with the additional report details.
(g) The procedures will be documented in the ballot announcement, whose distribution will not be restricted.
Cheers,
Roger
On Oct 7, 2022, 8:44 PM -0600, thompson@ieee.org, wrote:
Roger-
There has been so little enthusiasm for my proposal, even as a rough starting point that I am highly open
to a new approach that is likely to succeed at the EC and meets my criteria of evening out the influence of
voters across 802.
I like your proposal. I have only one suggested change which only changes or rather adds to how the results
are reported. That would fit in to your structure as added text to (e) or be a new one at (e+1/2).
(e+1/2) Ballot reporting will also include an all 802 roll-up of the results.
Presumably when the results are before the EC, each WG chair will be interested and vote will be swayed by
the results from their WG. In addition, each member of the EC should be considering the overall results.
Thus the roll-up should be included in the required reporting.
Thank you for your suggestion, this would be acceptable to me.
Geoff
On Friday, October 7, 2022, 12:08:41 PM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:
Geoff,
I would like to propose an alternative for WG ballot, based on my preference of retaining consistency with existing procedures:
(a) The ballot group will be the 802.1 WG members as of the ballot initiation.
(b) Everyone is entitled to comment in WG ballot.
(c) Anyone indicating, in a returned ballot, a single WG or TAG membership is eligible to submit a ballot indicating Approve/Dis/Abstain and may indicate comments as MBS.
-That membership (fixed at the start of the ballot) is subject to confirmation.
(d) Comment resolution will be conducted by 802.1 using their existing procedures. All comments marked MBS are treated as such.
(e) Ballot reporting will categorize all results per WG/TAG. In other words, we will see, for each WG/TAG, the votes, the comment stats, and the unresolved MBS.
(f) An 802.1 WG request to forward for SA ballot will follow the usual process, including the required 75% approval among the ballot group, with the additional report details.
(g) The procedures will be documented in the ballot announcement, whose distribution will not be restricted.
This would give all members an equal opportunity and give everyone, throughout the process, visibility into perspectives per WG. At the end of the process, it will help EC members decide how to vote on forwarding. It still recognizes that the PAR is assigned to the 802.1 WG and that it cannot advance until 802.1 is on board; that requirement is essentially inevitable because the motion is not coming to the EC until there is a motion of the 802.1 WG.
Cheers,
Roger
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1