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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ EC Voting Rules

Title: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ EC Voting Rules



My vote was DISAPPROVE per the email I sent below:


From: [] On Behalf Of Stuart J. Kerry
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC Voting Rules




I vote Disapprove on similar grounds to Steve and others on the item “The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause” and would accept, “without a simple majority of the EC membership”.


/ Stuart




From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:42 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results +++ EC Voting Rules


Dear EC members,

This ballot is closed!  Below you will see the closing status of the ballot.  Please let me know if you see any errors.

Thanks very much to everyone who took the time to participate.  Your participation is appreciated. I will continue to collect comments if they include ‘+++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot Results to date +++  EC Voting Rules’ in the title.  Comment resolution will take place during the previously posted telecoms times. I will provide recommended resolutions the day before the telecoms when possible.



Voters                DNV   DIS   APP   ABS     Comments Provided?


00 Paul Nikolich                                APP    

01 Mat Sherman          DNV

02 Pat Thaler                   DIS                     YES

03 Buzz Rigsbee         DNV

04 Bob O'Hara                   DIS                     YES

05 John Hawkins         DNV

06 Tony Jeffree                 DIS                     YES

07 Bob Grow                             DIS                     YES

08 Stuart Kerry         DNV

09 Bob Heile            DNV

10 Roger Marks          DNV

11 Mike Takefman                DNV

12 Mike Lynch           DNV

13 Steve Shellhammer            DIS                     YES

14 Jerry Upton                  DIS                     YES

15 Ajay Rajkumar                DNV

16 Carl Stevenson                       DIS                     YES


TOTALS                           DNV  DIS  APP  ABS

total:                  -09- -07- -01- -00-


Ballot Comments:


Grow, Bob []                          Sun 1/9/2005 12:24 AM

1.  The section number in the July P&P is 7.1.4.

2.  Use gender neutral phrasing wherever possible.

3.  Per yesterday's discussion, there was concensus it would be best to clearly state in one place that only voting members are counted in all votes, and this was a good place.

4.  There are multiple requirements that are subject to exception and others that are not.


Therefore, I believe the change to 7.1.4 should read:


"Only members of the EC with voting rights are counted in either the numerator or denominator in determinating the approval threshold for any EC vote.  The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause. Unless specified otherwise in these P&P all EC votes are in addition subject to the following provisions.  EC votes are by simple majority.  The Chair may only vote if the vote will change the outcome.  A quorum is at least one-half of the EC voting members."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                             Fri 1/7/2005 11:55 PM


I do not agree the following addition to the P&P.


"The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause."


There is no defintion of "cause."

If an EC member's voting rights are suspended for cause, it should be done by a vote of the EC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                          Mon 1/10/2005 8:53 PM


The primary issue is the suspension for cause addition to 7.1.7. It is unnecessary and invites trouble. If the LMSC chair ever took such an action the chair would be at risk of getting sued. In the case of working group chairs it is giving the LMSC chair an ability to overturn the working group's election of chair. So even if the suspended member didn't choose to sue, the working group might. I also find it difficult to believe that there will be a case where there was strong enough evidence of cause to take this action. If it is absolutely clear that there was extreme misbehavior, the member could probably be convinced to resign. Therefore I don't think we should make this addition. If there is such a provision added, it should require a written complaint to the executive committee and a vote by a supermajority of the Exec.


7.1.7 Are abstentions counted in the denominator is listed as an issue. While I believe that is usually what is meant by a "simple majority" is Yes greater than No, but I'm not sure everyone will agree. I have looked in a number of sources and the definition is hard to come by so if we are going to use it we should include "(i.e. more members voting yes than voting no)". Shouldn't this stated more explicitly? By the way, if we are going to use this term than we could use the term "absolute majority" for what our email ballots require (an absolute majority requires the affirmative vote of more than half the members). I don't see a compelling reason for this change. There has been at least one instance where we did extend a ballot due to poor turnout. Not allowing extension could leave us in a difficult postion if a ballot failed due to being sent out at a bad time. For example, what if there is an urgent motion to resolve a logistical problem with an upcoming meeting and it fails due to lack of participation? Is there a method to move to reconsider? Can a member who didn't vote be considered to have voted with the prevailing side (since not voting and voting No have the same effect) and thus be qualified to move to reconsider? Instead of having to do this, I suggest that we leave it in the judgement of the chair or the chair's designee to determine whether to extend a ballot that has failed due to lack of participation. This comment is also a reason for my disapprove. overlaps the text being balloted on P&P update and doesn't match what was circulated in that ballot. Please remove it from this ballot and handle the changes to the section in the P&P ballot. Editiorial non-binding comment: Here Executive Committee has been left fully spelled out where in other sections you replaced it with EC and in the new text you have "Committee member" without Executive.




Editorial comments:

7.1.7, it appears you have "majority majority".


Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM]                                               Wed 1/12/2005 7:43 AM

Again, I also vote disapprove, and agree with at least the majority of Pat's comments below.


I will try to provide my own comments after the January interims.


Tony Jeffree []                                               Mon 2/7/2005 6:58 AM




1) 7.1.7 "The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause."

This is not acceptable. I would be slightly (but not much) less concerned if it was just those EC members that he appointed whose voting rights he/she could suspend, but definitely not in the case of EC members that represent a constituency.

The appropriate course of action to deal with any such situation would seem to be a vote of the EC, not unilateral action by the Chair. Similarly, the "recommendation" alluded to in would need to be the result of an EC vote.

2) "Maximum advance notice is encouraged for all ballots on urgent matters."

This is an interesting piece of nonsense. If the matter is urgent, then presumably there is no additional notice that could have been given. If there is "maximum" time available (maximum being the interval between EC meetings), then clearly the matter is not urgent. Strike the sentence or replace it with something that makes sense.

Actually the preceding sentence:

"The minimum duration of an electronic ballot shall be 10 days unless the matter is urgent and requires resolution in less time."

isn't much better; in other words, "The duration is 10 days except when its shorter" which says nothing at all, least of all who makes the decision on what the duration might be. Again, strike or replace with something more sensible, like (for example): "The Chair or Vice Chair determines the period of the ballot; this will normally be 10 days, but may be less under exceptional circumstances, such as the need to resolve an urgent matter."

We probably also need to encode the rule that we have already applied a number of times, namely, that if all voters have responded the ballot can close early. How about adding:

"Where the matter to be resolved is urgent, the Chair or Vice Chair may determine that the ballot has closed once all voting members of the EC have cast their vote. This option can only be used if  it was so stated at the start of the ballot."

The final sentence is clearly necessary, as in a normal ballot with a fixed closing date, voters have the option of changing their vote at any point up to the stated closing date.



Bob O'Hara []                                  Tue 2/8/2005 1:03 AM

I am ready to vote approve, but cannot.  Please record my vote as "disapprove".  I will be willing to change my vote to approve, but only with the removal of "removal of voting rights for cause" or enumeration of exactly what causes are allowed to be used for removal of rights and how a determination of fact is made that one or more cause is valid.


Shellhammer, Stephen J []        Tue 2/8/2005 11:39 PM

          I vote Disapprove.


I agree with the others who say that saying the Chair can suspend an EC member’s voting rights with cause is inappropriate.  I would accept that the EC could vote to remove an EC member’s voting rights with cause, but not the chair all by himself.  A simple majority of the EC would be sufficient.


            The LMSC Chair may suspend voting rights of an EC member with cause.


I know the following text was not been modified; however, it needs to be.  It does not explain what “assign” means.  And for that matter the sentence does not say much.  The process for approving the change is already described below.  So it is clear what it takes to pass, otherwise, it fails.  Where does this middle of the road “assign” come from?  If it fails you can always submit a modified change request, and try again.  I would recommend deleting the sentence.


The Executive Committee shall approve, assign, or fail to accept the proposal.



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.

Senior Member Technical Staff


Office: +1 973.633.6344


---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.