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

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes


thanks for the improvement, I am happy to add
the obvious language fix and will think how to
integrate the additional instructions on

Between your examples of 1) and 2), I find 2)
to be the more problematic issue and the one
requiring attention since I believe Roberts
provides the chair with the necessary tools
to fix 1) without an explicit rules change.
I will look it up so I can cite the relevant

In particular, I have forced votes to be held
again when I failed to recognize a voter and then
reiterated that only voters may vote and the count
was different.

So let us discuss 2).

For example, in dot17, roll call votes were
used on several occasions to see if LMSC
rule e) was being violated. In 1 such
case, it was clear that the rule was being
violated and this allowed me to sit the
the entities involved down and read them the riot
act. Problem solved by next session!

The total number of roll call votes in 17
was low and there was only one occasion
where I thought the request for a roll call vote
was spurious and left it to a group vote, otherwise
I granted the request. In that one case, my recollection
is that it would not have hit the 20% mark. I am more
than happy to have my hands tied and hold such a vote
in the future.

As to the need for this in other working groups.
I said in the EC meeting that I am acting on a concern
from my former vice chair (Mr. Love) about the use
(or lack thereof) of roll call votes in dot20. I leave
it to him and other members of dot20 to highlight
why they see the need for such a rule.

I see the main use of a roll call vote is to get people to go
on the record and not so much to delay the process. As
I am sure some people will point out, there are better
procedural methods for delay. However, since *some*
people were concerned with roll call votes being used
to stall, I put in a remedy for that situation.

Personally, I can't imagine why a chair would refuse
to allow a roll call vote except to keep things
moving along. I can imagine why a group of voters
might want to avoid a roll call vote. It is in the vital
interest of IEEE 802 (and IMO IEEE) to insure that
people do go on the record for issues of importance
to the WG. Furthermore, as my failed EC motion shows
I believe this change should be implemented prior to the
start of the March 04 meeting.



Geoff Thompson wrote:
> Mike-
> (DISAPPROVE at this point)
> I applaud your attempts to fix this. I am not sure that it is a 
> tractable problem for reasons that I will outline below.
> But first the trivial fix:
> Change from:
> A roll call vote can be held at the discretion of the chair.
> Change to:
>     A roll call vote may be held at the discretion of the chair.
> And you need to add that a motion and a second is needed to call for a 
> roll call
> (and, I would hope that the vote could not be by acclamation)
> But further than that, I'm not wild about your test criteria.
> I believe that the problem in the Exec is that a roll call represents 
> two different situations.
> Situation #1
> Occurs in fairly large groups without voting tokens.
> Occasional problems arise when non-voters participate in a vote.
> There are two remedies to this situation
>         a) A caution from the WG Chair and a re-vote.
>         b) A roll call vote
> Requests for a roll call vote from the floor have traditionally been 
> honored.
> Requests for a roll call vote have been very infrequent.
> Situation #2
> (This is somewhat speculative since I am not in these groups. I welcome 
> supplemental or corrective information)
> Occurs in groups with voting tokens
> These groups have less of a problem with non-voters voting.
> There are situations where there are strategic voting issues with voting 
> in a secret ballot vs a "public" roll call vote.
> A request for a roll-call vote can be used in this situation to slow 
> things down or to force members to vote "on the record".
> My feeling is that we need to (1) recognize these differences and (2) 
> come up with a solution that harmonizes or clearly differentiates these 
> 2 situations rather than trying to lump them into the same pot.
> At this point I don't have a particular idea on how to do that, but I 
> believe that is the place to start.
> At 11:33 PM 11/24/2003 -0500, Mike Takefman wrote:
>> Dear EC Members,
>> as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
>> EC meeting I am starting a (35 day)  ballot on
>> the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
>> to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
>> (and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
>> earlier).
>> I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
>> during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
>> the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
>> to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
>> The language you will find enclosed is different (and
>> I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
>> 1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
>> (less of a run-on sentence).
>> 2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
>> by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
>> motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
>> be used as a delaying tactic.
>> Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
>> sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
>> was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
>> has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
>> but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
>> cheers,
>> mike
>> -- 
>> Michael Takefman    
>> Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
>> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>> voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991

Michael Takefman    
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991