Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics



Matt,
 
I guess Carl's intention is to better mimic the RR process: first discuss the motion, then, when there is no discussion, start voting. I belief that is a much better approach than the immediate voting option.
 
Regards
 

---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ  Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 1, + 2 during daylight saving time)
FAX: +31 30 609 7556
e-mail: vichayes@agere.com

-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:20 PM
To: carlstevenson@agere.com; tony@jeffree.co.uk
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

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 ...

 

Carl

-----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