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.
Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S:
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx:
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:43
Subject: Re: [802SEC]
EC email vote statistics
At 12:16 PM 7/30/2003 -0400,
Paul Nikolich wrote:
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
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.