|
Dear
Jay,
I think there are
two issues we need to separate:
1. What voting
procedure should we use?
2. What is the
status of votes that have been conducted under the "wrong" (if that is even
applicable)?
To answer the
second question first, I believe that the resolutions stand. The result was
declared by
the chair, and
need to be successfully appealed, probably within a reasonable
time.
There has been
quite a lot of confusion about what voting scheme we should adopt. I don't mind
much
between the
alternatives, but I think it is important to get it right so that the results of
votes can't be
challenged. My
investigations lead me to believe that Bob is right about
that.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information
Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email:
matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
Two problems with the remarks below.
1) Those previous votes spoken of below (SUMO,
IFF?) didn't fail, but were ruled to have passed by the Chair. I don't know
that the Chair has, in fact, been over-ruled. Also, note that the e-mails from
the Chair regarding these earlier votes specified a 'more restrictive' voting
method than the IEEE method.
2) If it should be determined that an invalid
voting procedure has in fact been used previously, then all votes conducted
under that procedure must be deemed invalid, and votes reconducted under a
valid procedure.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004
06:06
Subject: RE: P&P: RE: How votes are
counted
Dear
Bob,
In not
including failed votes in the list of resolutions, I was following the
precedence of the ISO committee I am associated with, ISO
TC184/SC4.
We could
choose to do something different, but I think the approach is sound. A
failed vote means nothing. It is only passed votes that have significance.
The record of failed votes is there in the archives for those who are
interested.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information
Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United
Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email:
matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
Matthew,
In the section of the SUO web page
titled Resolutions, I think it is appropriate to list all of the motions
that have resulted in a vote including those that have failed. This
gives a better perspective of the WG's activities. Two SUMO motions
have failed - the original one and the one offered last
summer.
Bob
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
Dear Bob
and Jim,
Well I've
had a look at this and it seems reasonably clear to me that the By-Law
below applies to us and so we require a majority of voting members for a
motion to pass.
As I
recall Jim's objection to this is that no other committee votes in this
way. However, I suspect we are the only committee that works entirely by
e-mail, and that is what causes the difference (except when other
committees have a letter ballot).
I should
perhaps make my own position clear. I am relatively indifferent as to
which voting process we use as a matter of principle. My experience is
that people adapt their behaviour to make a voting process work
reasonably. However, what I am concerned about is that there should be
uncertainty about how votes are counted. Then people do not know what
the effects of their behaviour will be.
So Jim,
do you accept that our voting is governed by the By-Law quoted below? If
not please give a rationale.
Also, if
you do not, what action do I have to take to challenge your decision so
that we can get this sorted out?
If we
accept this process below, then looking back the SUMO - and I
suspect the IFF vote would have failed (though the numbers of voting
members were not declared in the published ballot result). What do we do
about those votes?
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell
Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1
7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796
336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet:
http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
Matthew,
I spoke to a
member of the IEEE -SA staff who confirmed that in our case (a
vote without a meeting, e.g. e-mail) an affirmative vote of a majotity
of all the voting members is required. The reference is the IEEE
By-Laws, 1-300 Management, 1-300 General, 1. Governance;
Parliamentary Procedures, 4. Action of the Board of
Directors and Committees. (4) below:
(4) Unless otherwise provided in the Certificate
of Incorporation, the Constitution, these Bylaws, or the
Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York, any action
required or permitted to be taken by any board or committee of any
organizational unit of the IEEE (other than the Board of Directors,
the Executive Committee, the Major Boards, the Standing Committees
and any other board or committee reporting directly to the Board of
Directors) may be taken without a
meeting. Unless a more
restrictive voting requirement is specified in the governing
documents of the board or committee,
an affirmative vote of a
majority of all the voting members
of the board or committee
shall be required to approve the action. The results of the vote shall be
confirmed promptly in writing or by electronic transmission. The
writings and/or electronic transmissions shall be filed with the
minutes of the proceedings of the board or committee. ?Electronic transmission? means any form of electronic
communication, such as e-mail, not directly involving
the physical transmission of paper, that creates a record that may
be retained, retrieved and reviewed by a recipient thereof, and that
may be directly reproduced in paper form by such a
recipient.
The IEEE By-Laws can be
viewed at
http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis/bylaws&file=i-300.xml&xsl=generic.xsl
It is clear that the SUMO vote failed.
Bob
|