|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Actually I (with the consent of the WG) have applied the 2 of 3 ballots option with a great deal of tolerance. Per motion of the WG, the first time I applied the rule, it was also coupled it to no recent attendance (effectively shortening the age out period for those that didn't respond). In 802.3, the things we put to eballot is drafts and a subset of our interpretations requests. Most stuff can wait to the next meeting. The number of EC ballots between July and November probably exceeded the number of eballots in the four plenaries I have been Chair.
I would also note that we do not typically Abstain on our email ballots, DNV is equivalent. Since the rules require that email votes be by passed by a majority of the EC (not a majority of the responses, or a majority of the Yes over No votes), there is really no difference between an Abstain and a DNV. This counting method is also consistent with the requirement imposed on the Standards Board.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:09 AM
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
I don’t think I understand you comment about the list of pending rules changes. Can you elaborate more?
Also, 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. While 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 executive committee. If 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.
I agree with Geoff's position
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.