Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: PLEASE VOTE
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:44:20 -0500
> From: Ralph Baker Kearfott <rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Michel Hack <hack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: PLEASE VOTE
>
> Michel,
>
> I would need to dig deep into my records at this point to
> see what parts of our approved P&P are specific to us and
> what parts (I believe most) are pre-specified by IEEE.
> It would not be trivial, and it would take some time
> (with official approval from appropriate IEEE bodies) to
> change our P&P at this point. Furthermore, IEEE requires
> some parts. In any case, I don't think it is a good idea
> to change the rules in the middle of a particular vote.
>
> Regarding removal from the roster for non-voting, that is
> definitely being enforced independently of the outcome
> of any particular vote. This is analogous to a widespread
> rule in standards bodies to remove people from the roster
> who fail to attend two in-person meetings; it is meant
> to make it possible to continue to conduct business when
> there are inactive participants, and also to encourage
> participation.
>
> Baker
>
> On 7/19/2011 8:13 AM, Michel Hack wrote:
> >> Current tally: 27 Yes; 7 No; required for quorum: 38
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > Here is one possible rule: If the quorum has not been reached by the end
> > of the voting period, but either YES or NO votes exceed quorum/2, then the
> > quorum is deemed to have been reached. This avoids a motion being passed
> > by too small a number of votes, but also avoids the problem at hand.
> >
> > Michel.
> > ---Sent: 2011-07-19 13:34:51 UTC
> >
>
Michel & Baker,
We need not dig deep into the records nor come up with
any new rules. This situation is covered by the existing
rules.
I include (an edited version of) my comments on this
matter when it came up last year.
In it I state that I will call for the quorum with each
vote. I was angry at the time. It turns out that this
is unnecessary &, as I recall, Baker took it as such.
An online vote IS ALSO a quorum call. Failure to answer
two quorum calls in a row results in being dropped from
the roster of eligible voters.
A motion that fails due to lack of quorum has not been
rejected & may be resubmitted. Thus the problem resolves
itself by reducing the size of a quorum & permitting the
motion in question to be resubmitted to a now smaller
voting body with a smaller quorum & fewer non-participants
involved.
So vote on the current motion or not. Either way this
standard will be written by those who show up.
Dan
> From: Dan Zuras Intervals <intervals08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:46:30 -0800
>
> >
> > . . .
> >
>
> I do not approve of this peculiar behavior.
> It is twisting the 17th century rules for polite
> behavior to take advantage of our relatively
> anonymous 21st century way of meeting.
>
> There is a saying: They have power who have the
> power to say no.
>
> You are using this behavior to amplify that power
> to the point of jeopardizing this standard.
>
> Very well, let's see if old Robert was clever
> enough to account for that.
>
> Under section 10.1 of our Policies & Procedures
> (which we all voted for when we began this thing)
> I formally ask the chair for a quorum call before
> each vote. I find it acceptable that it be carried
> out in parallel with each vote. I further find it
> acceptable that a yea or nay vote be counted as
> 'present' in the quorum call. Both the quorum & the
> outcome of the vote will, therefore, be determined
> by the number of members that answer the quorum call.
>
> Quoting from paragraph 2 of section 8.2 we have:
>
> Each member is expected to remain informed
> of working group business, either through
> attending meetings or through electronic
> means, and to participate in votes. The
> Secretary (or Vote Tabulator, as appropriate)
> records who votes. Those who fail to vote on
> two consecutive issues will be dropped from
> the roster. These persons can have their
> voting privileges reinstated by again
> officially placing themselves on the roster.
>
> Therefore, under section 8.2 of the P&P, I further
> formally ask that those not participating in two votes
> in a row be dropped from the roster. The convention
> in 754 was to have someone answer 2 quorum calls in
> a row before being given the right to vote again.
> I don't see text in the P&P for that but it was the
> rule I used & the IEEE supported it.
>
> There is supporting text for all of this in sections
> 10.1, 10.4, 8.2, & 4.
>
> I apologise to our vote tabulator for making this
> request formally but it seems that something like
> this is being forced on us to prevent this standard
> from being defeated from within.
>
>
> Dan