|
Dear
Bob,
I maintain that
without going into exhaustive detail it is very hard to give an account that
is fair. SUMO has twice been a victim of votes where going into the vote
one set of rules was understood to apply by the voters, and after the vote
another set of rules was/may be applied.
My view is that
peoples behaviour in voting is affected by the method by which votes are
counted, and that voting under one expectation and counting under another means
that a failure to reach a higher standard means to me that you simply cannot
draw any sound conclusion from the result.
What I would
prefer to focus on is getting the voting method sorted, where as far as I can
see you are correct, and then in future we will not have the possibility of
decisions being questioned and taking up interminable time sorting them out.
After that I think we are better served accepting the mistakes - and concentrate
on looking forward rather than remembering an unfortunate
history.
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,
The SUO WG has a unusual history in
the area of parliamentary procedure and as Jay's note indicates, the status of
a particular motion is not immediately clear to one not familiar with that
history. This is compounded by a vast archive that is difficult to
search or analyze. Since relatively few motions have been voted, it
doesn't seem burdensome for either the reader or poster to have a complete
list easily available.
Bob
-------- Original Message --------
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
|