Ralph Baker Kearfott wrote:
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.
There can never be a record of whether people have not been able
to participate (except when someone says that they have/haven't
been able to do so), only a record of how much they participate.
And as had been explained before (if I recall correctly), there are
deliberately different rules for position motions and text motions.
In motions on text one _must_ vote (at the risk of a penalty);
in motions on position there are apparently deliberately no such
penalties and hence no must.
Thus one should use this freedom to further the quality of the
standard.
This means to maximize the likelihood that poor decisions are taken
by a minority of perhaps 19 dedicated yes voters.
In a game with incomplete information such as this one,
where there is a very large chance that barely more than half
of the votes are actually being cast, this may make a big difference.
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.)
So do I in promoting the highest quality of the decisions resulting
through voting.
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.)
Whether or not it is an advantage or a disaster to have a standard
depends on the quality of the standard.
It is better to have no standard than a poor, unrestrictive one
that multiplies options without necessity.
But it is best to have a strong, restrictive one that requires what
supports the important uses, and not tries to please everybody.
Regarding, "ill-conceived voting rules," I'm doing my best not to
take your comment personally.
I apologize for having appeared offending to you.
I criticized the rules, not their makers. I don't even know who made
them and how much choice the committee had/has in modifying them.
And it was a gradual process to realize that the rules were poor.
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.
My criticism has nothing to do with your statement.
Not voting when opposing a motion on position would be the
rational choice even when all members were assembled in the
same room, but with the 1788 voting rules in force.
The problem is in requiring a quorum of participating votes rather
than a quorum of yes-votes.
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.
I'd suggest that in place of requiring a quorum of
(eligible votes)/2 +eps (YES or NO) votes
to make the voting valid, there should be a quorum of
(eligible votes)/3 +eps YES votes.
This would remedy the present defect, and encourage people to vote,
whether or not they want the motion.
We would then need to request a change to the Project Authorization
from IEEE to put those changes into effect.
This might be a good idea.
And it would set a positive example for future committees.
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.
I am fairly sure that although not being a member, I did
and do as much work on 1788 issues as anyone on the committee,
I wouldn't work more as a member, and none of my emails would
have been different (except for those talking about that I or
my Vienna group does not vote).
But you don't need to take my contributions seriously
unless you find the information that I provide useful.
I try my best to be as informative as possible in my mails,
but the price for this is that you also get my propaganda for
what I consider to be high quality, and (since I happen to
feel strongly about quality) also my emotional response.
If you value my advice, there is no need for me to become
a member and vote. If you don't value my advice,
you can easily remove me from the mailing list.
But remember that the standard is made for heavy users of
intervals, people like those of my group, but also others
like Rump, Rohn, Shary, Hales, Nakao, Plum, van Hentenryck,
Floudas, Sahinidis, Liberti, just to name some of the
best people who stand for quality but do not participate
in the voting.
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.
Arnold Neumaier