Jay,
The Chair was in fact directed by IEEE-SA to announce that the first
SUMO vote failed. This was the result of a motion that was unanimously
passed by the IEEE-SA Board of Governors that specifically addressed
how votes are counted in the SUO WG. After nearly a year in which the
Chair refused to do so, the IEEE-SA instructed the Chair that if he did
not clearly state that the vote failed he would be removed as Chair. He
did state that the vote failed.
The IFF vote was not challenged.
The result of the second SUMO vote was also challenged (by me). By
challenged I mean that I asserted that properly counting the votes
resulted in the failure of the motion. I pointed out to the Chair (and
the SUO) the proper method by which they should be counted both before
and after the vote was taken.
Bob
Jay Halcomb wrote:
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
|