<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi All,<br>
<br>
I will use the votes received on my ticket to propose a suggestion
for future voting rules. I am not discussing anything about the
ticket itself, nor promoting to change the voting results at the
last meeting, but just to suggest what would make sense for later.
I'm just using my ticket because the votes and reasons I received
for this ticket covers a lot if not all voting categories and
reasons :-)<br>
<br>
The ticket received 8 (yes) - 2 (no) - 6 (abstain) votes.<br>
After contacting the people who voted no and abstain, this was a
summary of the reasons:<br>
<ul>
<li>1 NO vote, because of reason X <br>
</li>
<li>1 NO vote, because of a misunderstanding <br>
</li>
<li>2 abstain votes because of concerns Y and Z<br>
</li>
<li>4 abstain votes because either the voters were attending the
meeting for the first time and are not familiar with the ticket,
or just do not understand what is being proposed or don't care.
Some of them were aware that their votes means no, and some were
not.<br>
</li>
</ul>
It totally makes sense to count the 2 NO votes, and 2 of the
abstains to be as NO votes, but it is ridiculous to count the last 4
abstains as NO votes. <br>
IMO what should happen is that the people who are abstaining because
of a certain concern should just vote NO (not abstain), and then we
use the old rule as pass = yes > no. If we go with the Japan rule
then people should just vote YES or NO, because the abstain category
is useless.<br>
<br>
I hope that makes sense.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
Mohamad<br>
<br>
On 6/14/2012 11:04 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:4A2C2FD9-512F-4718-AD8F-1BE9E95CE242@cisco.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Was nobody looking at our rules:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/voting.php">http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/voting.php</a>
- Measures pass on simple majority.
- Formal votes will be taken by roll.
If you are not present, your organization
does not vote (effectively the same as abstain).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Please see my prior emails (from a week or two ago) about this:
- there are multiple accepted definitions of "simple majority"
- "quorum" is not defined
- there is also a question of the definition of "not present" -- does that not present in the room? (which is how I have interpreted it, but there has been some bending of that rule on occasion) Or not present at the meeting at all? Or not present that day? Or ...?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Here you can see "abstain" == "not voting",
and wiki clearly tells "simple majority"
means more than 50% of the passed votes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Even from this text, there is multiple possible interpretations. :-\
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why was there a discussion about this?
Jeff, how old is this file?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">SVN says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r312 | jsquyres | 2010-06-16 16:30:51 -0400 (Wed, 16 Jun 2010) | 2 lines
Changed paths:
M /trunk/secretary/index.php
A /trunk/secretary/voting.php
Add voting rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The file has not changed since that date.
In mails a week or two ago, I discussed the history of the MPI-3 procedures document, too.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>