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
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.
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
From: Geoff Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003
To: Paul Nikolich
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email
At 12:16 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC members,
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.
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.