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

[Barrett, Brian W]

Hang on a second...  I wasn't trying to justify one way or the other.  I
really did't care what the rules are.  I followed the operational
procedures Jeff gave me and the voting rules Rich gave me (ie, the same
ones he gave everyone in the room).  I tend to agree with Dave Goodell; we
had a self-reinforcing belief system because the votes were never really
close.  But if the quorum at the meeting had said that you need 3.14 times
more yes votes than no votes to pass, that's what I would have done.

Brian

On 6/14/12 10:57 AM, "David Solt" <dsolt at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>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.
>
>Dave  
>
>
>
>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.
>
>-Dave
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpi-forum mailing list
>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpi-forum mailing list
>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum


-- 
  Brian W. Barrett
  Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software
  Sandia National Laboratories