<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 31, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>Because "sum>0" is a poor measure for something that<br>is ready for standardization. ISO standards require<br>unanimity. While that requirement is perhaps overly<br>strict, it is much better than "more in favor than<br>those who already recognize problems in the current form".<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree with Bronis - the simple majority rule is not the best idea for creating standards, in particular since we are anyway always saying that we are consensus driven. I personally think a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (with either counting abstains as no or at least having a quorum for the number of yes votes) would not be unreasonable and follow the spirit of the MPI forum better.</div><div><br></div><div>To also second something else: I fully agree that we need a better documentation about the process and that this is not restricted to the votes. In addition to the requirements for readings, that Bronis mentioned, it would also be good to define what we consider ticket 0 and what not (we have gotten very open on this the closer the deadline came, which in my opinion is exactly the wrong thing to do), what are the time requirements to make documents available, when and what can we reread within one meeting, the exact role and duties of the chapter committees, when and how many reviews/reviewers are needed for tickets, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Martin</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">If abstain=no then why bother having the category at all? Are we<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">trying to implement abstain="polite no" and no="cruel no"?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Why don't we vote with +1, 0 and -1, where sum>0 passes?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jeff<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <<a href="mailto:bronis@llnl.gov">bronis@llnl.gov</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">All:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">have always been. More importantly, they are consistent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> a simple majority is defined as a simple majority<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> of those present and eligible to vote.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"no" by this definition. If they did not want their<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">the room. I recall several instances in which someone<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present".<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">See the definition above -- they then do not count as<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">not object to a clarifying statement being added to the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes."<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I think we have many other issues that should be made<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">What is required to pass a first reading is probably the<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">most obvious issue.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Bronis<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">indication<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">that this bylaw change was half baked.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">location. It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">change the by-laws with a single vote.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">To be clear, the process document states:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> majority of those present and eligible to vote.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">define that phrase. So even though the above sentence looks like a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">circular<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">search<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions).<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">from<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">commenting further.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them. We should not however<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">forward. Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">-Fab<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpi-forum mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">_______________________________________________<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">mpi-forum mailing list<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum">http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum</a><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-- <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Jeff Hammond<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Argonne Leadership Computing Facility<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">University of Chicago Computation Institute<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:jhammond@alcf.anl.gov">jhammond@alcf.anl.gov</a> / (630) 252-5381<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond">http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond">https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"></blockquote>_______________________________________________<br>mpi-forum mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org">mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.org</a><br>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum</div></blockquote></div><br><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><div>________________________________________________________________________<br>Martin Schulz, <a href="mailto:schulzm@llnl.gov">schulzm@llnl.gov</a>, <a href="http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm">http://people.llnl.gov/schulzm</a><br>CASC @ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, USA</div><div><br></div></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></body></html>