SUO: *Date 22 Jan 2002
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Item 1. Gathering Questions, Matthew West
Item 2. Gathering Questions, Tim King
MW = Matthew West
TK = Tim King
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Item 1. Gathering Questions, Matthew West
MW: I would like to explore the issue of non-voters here.
MW: It seems to me that non-voters are most closely equivalent to
non-attenders at a meeting. If we adopted this convention then
the following consequences would flow:
MW: 1. We would need to establish a quorum for votes.
If a quorum was not reached, then the vote would
fail for that reason alone. A no vote therefore
has some, but minimal impact. Do we have a quorum
specified for different types of vote?
MW: 2. If the current ruling from IEEE stands, we might
want to encourage those who truly wish to abstain
simply not to vote, since voting "abstain" is at
least a semi-no vote.
MW: 3. This has implications for treatment of non-voters.
The current penalties would seem inappropriate.
MW: I guess the point I am trying to make is that
whatever the voting rules, with an intelligent
group, people will try to find a way to express
their intent accurately. I guess therefore that
we should not get too excited about the ruling
that has been made. If we accept it, we at
least have some definitive rules, and we will
know what it means when we cast our votes.
MW: I know accepting this has the minor inconvenience of repeating
the vote on the SUMO, but that is an easier route than fighting
the hierarchy, and in any case, at some point this will need
to be done anyway to progress.
MW: Please give this your consideration as an alternative strategy.
Matthew,
An abstention, or a voicing of presence that abstains from
judging either pro or con with regard to the issue before
the assembly, is just that, a reservation of judgment.
It says, in effect, that one is concerned enough to
be present and paying a quantum of attention to the
debate, but that that one does not have, in one's
present estimation, sufficient reason to decide
either for or against the position proposed.
Such a reserve, and such a judgment of
insufficient information, ought to be
respected and weighed into the method
of reaching the prospective consensus.
This is especially true of the sorts
of scientific and technical matters
that presently ought to concern
this assembly the most.
In short, an explicit abstention is not a semi-con vote
and it is not a semi-pro vote -- it is a vote of neither.
Still, they also serve who only stand and weigh into the
big N that reinforces the sense of the whole community
and measures the validity of whatever result eventually
develops. A majority proportion of those concerned to
vote is the minimal way of achieving this modicum of
respect to the concerns of all concerned.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Item 2. Gathering Questions, Tim King
TK: An extension of Matthew's suggestion:
TK: Voting options =
Yes, No, Abstain (no opinion), Abstain (not participating)
TK: Active members (registered to continue membership) =
Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion) + Abstain (not participating)
TK: Voters =
Yes + No + Abstain (no opinion)
TK: Quorum: Voters / Active members > x%
TK: Majority: Yes / Voters > y%
I support this suggestion.
To avoid confusion, any suitable response, for
example "yes", "no", "abstain", or "present"
counts as a record of presence, while the
absence of such counts as a record of
absence. By definition, y >= 50.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤