Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics

I agree with Geoff's position here.

However, I would also vote against such a move for reasons of priority. While we remain in a situation where our current P&P fail to even adequately identify our membership rules, I will vote against any attempts to add to our list of pending rules changes.

Also, before we start raising the possibility of sanctions, let us explore other possibilities, such as the suggestion Roger made a while back, to track the progress of Email ballots on the Web, so that we can easily see what ballots are outstanding and whether our vote has been registered.


At 21:42 31/07/2003 -0400, wrote:

Frankly, I m with Paul.  My experience is many people don t comment unless they have to.  If something has too many flaws to count, then I can accept a comment which says so, and perhaps details two or three big ones.  And the response can be rough without a specific solution.  So I don t accept it is purely a question of formatting.  Unless you hold a stick over their heads some people simply won t make time to participate.  I think Paul s suggestion might require some refinement.  But I think we want to put some teeth into the rules concerning ballot responses.  We have it on the WG level.  We should have something on the EC level.




Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O []
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:30 PM
To: Geoff Thompson; Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics


Paul,  I m with Geoff on this one.  For some issues, there are so many things wrong that writing out comments on all of those is a non-productive process, and DNV is the reasonable alternative. 


If you want to get better return rates on ballots you need to spend more time up front on crafting the text being balloted and responding to discussion comments.  Rewriting a document by ballot comments is a very inefficient process and should be avoided at all cost.  Circulation of drafts for comments and responding to inputs received is more efficient and less redundant, prior to going for a ballot.  Ballots where most folks can vote Approve without comments always get good returns. 


Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson []
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:43 PM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics



At 12:16 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:

Dear EC members,
Between the March 2003 and July 2003 plenary sessions the EC had 7 electronic ballots (the rules ballots are not counted in these stats), giving a total of 7*13=91 vote 'opportunities', 19 of which were DNVs.  Almost 21% of the vote opportunities were not utilized.  We can do better than this.  I think a 90% return rate is a reasonable goal.  Please cast your vote during email ballots, it is your responsibility to your WG/TAG and the LMSC.
Addtionally, at the Novebmer plenary session, I plan to request that the EC to empower me to suspend the EC email ballot voting rights of any member who does not cast a vote in 2 out of the last 3 email ballots.

I assert that any action by you to do so would infringe my right to vote DISAPPROVE by inaction.
We have DNV in the denominator for a reason.

--Paul Nikolich