ANSWER TO Re: PLEASE VOTE -- why?
Arnold et al,
If people don't vote and don't give a reason, there is no record of whether
or not people have been able to participate. It is very important that
it be clear at higher levels of IEEE (after we deliver the document
and during and after the Sponsor Ballot) that every opportunity has
been given for participation and that all questions and objections
be answered. (As an example of this, I am doing my best to answer
your present question on procedure.) If this is not done satisfactorily,
there is a very good chance that we will end up with no standard at all.
In fact, there are various examples of this happening.
(Of course, some people on this list might desire this -- my comments do
not apply to them.)
Regarding, "ill-conceived voting rules," I'm doing my best not to
take your comment personally. Our procedures are an experiment in email processing
of votes, and have been designed to maximize the possibility of participation,
taking into account the fact that people may not be able to respond immediately.
To take your criticism of "ill-conceived voting rules" seriously, we would need
to get specific, positive suggestions from you for how they could be changed to
advantage. We would then need to request a change to the Project Authorization
from IEEE to put those changes into effect. Also, I strongly recommend that you
actually become a member and vote, in addition to supplying additional positive
suggestions. It is harder to take someone seriously who merely sits on the sidelines and
takes pot-shots of people actually doing the work.
Sincerely,
Baker
On 10/5/2010 10:41, Arnold Neumaier wrote:
Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
Please vote. It is better
why? According to whose objectives?
that we have a definitive statement than for a motion to fail from lack of a quorum.
Because of the ill-conceived voting rules, it appears to be
more rational if those who oppose the motion don't vote.
For in that case, 37 Yes are needed for passing, while
if they vote No, only 19 Yes might suffice for passing.
Therefore, failing a quorum is proof of a poorly designed
Motion.
Those opposing the motion can still give the list their
reasons for not voting, if they like.
Then no information is lost.
On 10/5/2010 08:40, Corliss, George wrote:
P1788,
Voting on Motion M0013.04 Comparison Relations (Kulisch/Pryce) ends on Friday, October 8.
Current count: Yes: 18; No: 1; Required for quorum: 37
Voting on Motion M0020.01 Comparing Comparisons (Lohez/Kreinovich) ends on Friday, October 8.
Current count: Yes: 12; No: 6; Required for quorum: 37
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------