RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
At 09:09 01/08/2003 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
most of us when we run a rules change provide periodic feedback as to who
has responded particularly a day or two before the close.
Most, but by no means all.
And it is not necessarily of much help to get feedback a day or two
before a ballot closes; for example, I am soon heading off on a couple of
weeks of vacation, and while I am (sadly) taking my laptop with me,
whether it proves to be of any use will depend critically on whether the
particular part of the wilds of Scotland I am planning to visit is served
by my cellphone company (unlikely). If there was a webpage available
where I could rapidly check status before I disappear from contact, it
would be a lot easier than trawling back through my emails.
I agree with Roger that a web based approach is a good idea, I don t
think it addresses the fact that people fail to respond. We would
not tolerate people not responding to letter ballots in our Working
Groups. Why should we tolerate less responsible behavior on the
I don't believe that this is in any way the same problem, and therefore
doesn't merit the same kind of Draconian solution.
Persuading WG members to respond to ballots on drafts is vital for the
continued progress of our work (making standards). While the membership
of 802.1 is mercifully fairly small right now (40 voters), some other
groups have to contend with voting memberships in the 100's; for those
larger groups, getting a valid WG ballot can be very hard work indeed,
and failure to do so can unnecessarily delay a project. The main reason
(IMHO) for that loss of WG membership rule is to help ensure that we can
meet an externally imposed test for the validity of our ballot process;
this not something that applies to SEC votes.
While it is probably annoying for an Exec vote not to get an enthusiastic
response, I don't think I can point at a single case in recent years
where this has seriously hindered us in the the ongoing work of 802
(i.e., making standards).
a person wants to say no, they should say no. Not responding is the
least productive way of saying no since it gives no feedback to the
persons originating the letter ballot. Even if that feedback is
that the letter ballot is too ill format to be worthy of response,
such a response is good feedback for the person running the ballot.
If you don t respond, the person doesn t know if it was a no or a don t
care . There is a big difference and it can affect the motioners
(if there is such a word) decision to reformat or make changes and try
again. Someone needs to explain to me why we should expect less in
this regard on the EC than we do in WGs.
Currently, a DNV is treated as a statement that "I vote No, but I
have no other comments to make", and is therefore no different (and
should be treated no differently) from an Email response just saying
"I disapprove". I see no problem here. That is a perfectly
acceptable position to take on any vote that takes place in an SEC
meeting; I don't recall anyone ever being called upon to justify their No
votes on SEC motions in face-to-face meetings. There is therefore
absolutely no reason why the same principle should not apply
As Paul has pointed out, I think this whole discussion is becoming
clouded by the confusion between what he identified as "email
votes" vs. "P&P email ballots". I would agree with you
that failing to vote "No with comments" on a P&P change
ballot is extremely unhelpful; however, as I understand it, that was not
the target of Paul's proposal.