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

RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics

Mat -

At 09:09 01/08/2003 -0400, wrote:
Also, most of us when we run a rules change provide periodic feedback as to who has responded particularly a day or two before the close. 

Most, but by no means all.

And it is not necessarily of much help to get feedback a day or two before a ballot closes; for example, I am soon heading off on a couple of weeks of vacation, and while I am (sadly) taking my laptop with me, whether it proves to be of any use will depend critically on whether the particular part of the wilds of Scotland I am planning to visit is served by my cellphone company (unlikely). If there was a webpage available where I could rapidly check status before I disappear from contact, it would be a lot easier than trawling back through my emails.

While I agree with Roger that a web based approach is a good idea, I don t think it addresses the fact that people fail to respond.  We would not tolerate people not responding to letter ballots in our Working Groups.  Why should we tolerate less responsible behavior on the executive committee.  

I don't believe that this is in any way the same problem, and therefore doesn't merit the same kind of Draconian solution.

Persuading WG members to respond to ballots on drafts is vital for the continued progress of our work (making standards). While the membership of 802.1 is mercifully fairly small right now (40 voters), some other groups have to contend with voting memberships in the 100's; for those larger groups, getting a valid WG ballot can be very hard work indeed, and failure to do so can unnecessarily delay a project. The main reason (IMHO) for that loss of WG membership rule is to help ensure that we can meet an externally imposed test for the validity of our ballot process; this not something that applies to SEC votes.

While it is probably annoying for an Exec vote not to get an enthusiastic response, I don't think I can point at a single case in recent years where this has seriously hindered us in the the ongoing work of 802 (i.e., making standards).

If a person wants to say no, they should say no.  Not responding is the least productive way of saying no since it gives no feedback to the persons originating the letter ballot.  Even if that feedback is that  the letter ballot is too ill format to be worthy of response, such a response is good feedback for the person running the ballot.  If you don t respond, the person doesn t know if it was a no or a don t care .  There is a big difference and it can affect the motioners (if there is such a word) decision to reformat or make changes and try again.  Someone needs to explain to me why we should expect less in this regard on the EC than we do in WGs.

Currently, a DNV is treated as a statement that "I vote No, but I have no other comments to make", and is therefore no different (and should be treated no differently) from an Email response just saying "I disapprove". I see no problem here. That is a perfectly acceptable position to take on any vote that takes place in an SEC meeting; I don't recall anyone ever being called upon to justify their No votes on SEC motions in face-to-face meetings. There is therefore absolutely no reason why the same principle should not apply here.

As Paul has pointed out, I think this whole discussion is becoming clouded by the confusion between what he identified as "email votes" vs. "P&P email ballots". I would agree with you that failing to vote "No with comments" on a P&P change ballot is extremely unhelpful; however, as I understand it, that was not the target of Paul's proposal.