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

David Solt dsolt at us.ibm.com
Thu Jun 14 13:36:28 CDT 2012

I'm not blaming you for trying to put forth some reason, but I question 
why a group of logical people didn't question what you put forth.   I 
disagree that the quorum at the meeting was that no==abstain.   I think 
the consensus at the meeting was to go along with what was put before 
them, which happened to be no==abstain.    The question is why was 
no==abstain brought forth at all:

>From Rich:
Let's clarify what happened here.  I was approached off line by someone 
that wanted clarification of the rules, with the specific intent of 
preferring to abstain in some instances, and have it have the same effect 
as no, rather than voting no explicitly.  With the fact that there were 
several items on the voting agenda that we knew would be close, a decision 
had to be made as to what "simple majority" means, so we discussed this 
with all folks in the room and there was no disagreement that simple 
majority meant more than 50% of the votes.  We did delay the votes until 
all vote eligible members that were supposed to be present arrived.

It all comes back to this.   Someone pushed for no==abstain to make sure 
that the controversial issues would not get passed and that's where I feel 
wrong doing took place.   After that I blame myself and I blame us as a 
group for allowing this to happen, but this was just wrong. 


From:   "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre at sandia.gov>
To:     "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
Date:   06/14/2012 12:46 PM
Subject:        Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re:  Voting in July (and 
Sent by:        mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org

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.


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 
>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
>me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better.
> Dave Goodell <goodell at mcs.anl.gov>
> Main MPI Forum mailing
>list <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>
> 06/14/2012 11:27 AM
>   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
>>> 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
>and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of
>view that is.  Years of voting in which the results match up with
>someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further
>a particular viewpoint.
>mpi-forum mailing list
>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
>mpi-forum mailing list
>mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org

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

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/20120614/26dc37ce/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list