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

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes


Thanks for your researched reply.

Your quote is yet another example of why I believe that we should only 
point to RROO-NR in an advisory way as opposed to a normative reference.

My guess is that the RROO situation is presumed to be an assembly where 
those present are entitle to vote. We do not necessarily have that situation.

I can see that the combination of voting tokens and having to rise to the 
vote might be an adequate solution.

The truth is that there is no perfect and/or foolproof solution.

The problem we are grappling with in the P&P is that we are trying to deal 
with two different problems with one solution. I think that is going to be 



At 09:55 PM 11/26/2003 -0500, Mike Takefman wrote:

>I checked Robert's rules and found the following.
>The responsibility of announcing, or declaring, the vote rests upon the 
>chair, and he, therefore, has the right to have the vote taken again, by 
>rising, if he is in doubt as to the result, and even to have the vote 
>counted, if necessary. He cannot have the vote taken by ballot or by yeas 
>and nays (roll call) unless it is required by the rules or by a vote of 
>the assembly. But if the viva voce vote does not make him positive as to 
>the result he may at once say, "Those in favor of the motion will rise;" 
>and when they are seated he will continue, "Those opposed will rise." If 
>this does not enable him to determine the vote, he should say, "Those in 
>favor of the motion [or, Those in the affirmative] will rise and stand 
>until counted." He then counts those standing, or directs the secretary to 
>do so, and then says, "Be seated. Those opposed [or, Those in the 
>negative] rise and stand until counted." After both sides are counted the 
>chair announces the result as shown below. In a very large assembly the 
>chair may find it necessary to appoint tellers to count the vote and 
>report to him the numbers. In small assemblies a show of hands may be 
>substituted for a rising vote.
>Therefore, in situation 1) you described, the chair has a number
>of ways to retake the vote, including forcing people to stand
>and be recognized but not including a roll call vote. However,
>even just forcing people to stand and be recognized allows some
>level of check on whether someone is a voter or not.
>I can see how one might view adding a rule to allow the chair to
>force a roll call vote could be viewed as a remedy to situation
>1), however it was not the intent of the rule. The fact that it
>could be used to fix 1) is a (happy) coincidence,
>Further thought on the use of voting tokens does not in and
>of itself prevent fraud, although it does insure that no
>additional voters add to the pool. Then again, a roll
>call vote does not prevent fraud either unless all
>voters are known to all other voters.
>Hope you are having a good thanksgiving.
>Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>(DISAPPROVE at this point)
>>I applaud your attempts to fix this. I am not sure that it is a tractable 
>>problem for reasons that I will outline below.
>>But first the trivial fix:
>>Change from:
>>A roll call vote can be held at the discretion of the chair.
>>Change to:
>>     A roll call vote may be held at the discretion of the chair.
>>And you need to add that a motion and a second is needed to call for a 
>>roll call
>>(and, I would hope that the vote could not be by acclamation)
>>But further than that, I'm not wild about your test criteria.
>>I believe that the problem in the Exec is that a roll call represents two 
>>different situations.
>>Situation #1
>>Occurs in fairly large groups without voting tokens.
>>Occasional problems arise when non-voters participate in a vote.
>>There are two remedies to this situation
>>         a) A caution from the WG Chair and a re-vote.
>>         b) A roll call vote
>>Requests for a roll call vote from the floor have traditionally been honored.
>>Requests for a roll call vote have been very infrequent.
>>Situation #2
>>(This is somewhat speculative since I am not in these groups. I welcome 
>>supplemental or corrective information)
>>Occurs in groups with voting tokens
>>These groups have less of a problem with non-voters voting.
>>There are situations where there are strategic voting issues with voting 
>>in a secret ballot vs a "public" roll call vote.
>>A request for a roll-call vote can be used in this situation to slow 
>>things down or to force members to vote "on the record".
>>My feeling is that we need to (1) recognize these differences and (2) 
>>come up with a solution that harmonizes or clearly differentiates these 2 
>>situations rather than trying to lump them into the same pot.
>>At this point I don't have a particular idea on how to do that, but I 
>>believe that is the place to start.
>>At 11:33 PM 11/24/2003 -0500, Mike Takefman wrote:
>>>Dear EC Members,
>>>as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
>>>EC meeting I am starting a (35 day)  ballot on
>>>the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
>>>to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
>>>(and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
>>>I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
>>>during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
>>>the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
>>>to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
>>>The language you will find enclosed is different (and
>>>I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
>>>1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
>>>(less of a run-on sentence).
>>>2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
>>>by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
>>>motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
>>>be used as a delaying tactic.
>>>Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
>>>sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
>>>was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
>>>has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
>>>but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
>>>Michael Takefman    
>>>Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
>>>Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>>>3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>>>voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991
>Michael Takefman    
>Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
>Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991