[Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)

David Solt dsolt at us.ibm.com
Thu Jun 14 11:57:06 CDT 2012

I believe that years of Jeff stating the voting rules at each meeting 
would be sufficient to correct those people who had the incorrect 
interpretation of the voting rules.   When it was asked in Japan why we 
even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even give a logical explanation. 
 He said something about it providing further feedback to those bringing 
the proposal, but that only makes sense for straw votes.   You can try to 
convince me that some people could theoretically have been confused by how 
votes are counted because they have not been active in the Forum, but you 
will be hard pressed to convince me that the people pushing for abstain=no 
in Japan didn't know better.


From:   Dave Goodell <goodell at mcs.anl.gov>
To:     Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Date:   06/14/2012 11:27 AM
Subject:        Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)
Sent by:        mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org

On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote:

>> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there was 
>> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room.
> I disagree.  I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated that at 
> the Japan meeting.

Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong.  Nonetheless, I 
don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction.

> I don't know how people can be so out of touch with 
> what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for 
> years.

The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have 
always yielded the same result in the past.  Only at the Japan meeting did 
we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes under 
each interpretation.

As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is 
ambiguous, and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, 
regardless of which view that is.  Years of voting in which the results 
match up with someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) 
further reinforces a particular viewpoint.


mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120614/089a9f25/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list