Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes
The ballot closes on December 30, 2003 at noon EST.
I will be sending out an email with the current results
later this week.
But in general, I need more responses from people.
> Please excuse my ignorance but please remind me of the closing date of
> the 35 day ballot. In the light of the forthcoming holidays, I do not
> want to miss this important question and miss placing my vote on record.
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
> Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
> Ph : +1 (408) 474-7356
> Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
> Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
> eMail: email@example.com
> *"Roger B. Marks" <firstname.lastname@example.org>*
> Sent by:
> 12/17/2003 09:52
> To: Mike Takefman <email@example.com>
> cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> (bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot
> on Roll Call Votes
> I vote Disapprove.
> We have heard about the use of roll-call votes to separate voters from
> non-voters. Each WG has a need to handle this problem, and each has a
> long tradition of solving it effectively. In 802.16, for instance, we
> use voting tokens. For us, this a more efficient solution than roll-call
> We have also heard that a forced roll-call voting is somehow tied to
> "block voting." However, "block voting" is not prohibited, or even
> mentioned, in the P&P. The P&P simply gives the WG Chair the authority
> to "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and,
> if so, treat that organizations' vote as one (with the approval of the
> Executive Committee)." Since the Chair makes the procedural decisions,
> the Chair already has the power to order a roll call vote if that will
> assist his or her determination or help prepare supporting material for
> presenting a case to the EC.
> Since I see no need for this P&P change, I am, by default, opposed. We
> seem to have reached a general consensus that our P&P should be less,
> not more, specific. It was also my understanding that we (informally)
> agreed to operate under a rules-change moratorium while Mat revises the
> P&P format. Because of that moratorium, we put even high-priority rules
> changes on the back burner.
> Finally, there is the question of the possible negative impact of this
> rules change. I certainly see such potential. The proposal would allow
> 20% of the membership to force a group to spend up to 20% of its time
> counting the roll (not to mention the time administering the motion to
> initiate the roll call vote). That is, in my view, an unacceptable
> inefficiency of process. And the real cost to the group's progress can
> be much closer to 100%. For instance, in 802.16, we finalize the group's
> progress for the week in a dense Closing Plenary. Giving up 20% of the
> Closing Plenary to roll calls could cost us much more than 20% of our
> week's progress.
> The WG Chair has a lot of responsibility and can't carry it out without
> the ability to manage the agenda. This P&P change would make the agenda
> even more unpredictable. It could also easily backfire and result in a
> WG being "dominated by an organization" whose tactic is to force
> roll-call votes.
> >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 email@example.com
> >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
> >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revisi 1.doc
> (WDBN/MSWD) (0023B7AD)
> >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802_RollCall_P&P.pdf (PDF /CARO) (0023B7AE)
Michael Takefman firstname.lastname@example.org
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