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

Bronis R. de Supinski bronis at llnl.gov
Fri Jun 15 10:06:13 CDT 2012

I'll make a much stronger statement. I am not concerned over
hair-splitting of defining "simple majority". I am very concerned
that we are engaging in hair splitting over the definition in
order to decide when to include things that do NOT have a clear
consensus (and abstains count against that because "don't care"
and "don't know" are not NOT pro votes).

I'll repeat what I said earlier: if a ticket does not have a
clear consensus, the honorable thing is for the proposers to
retract it (perhaps to a later date when they have established
consensus). In the absebce of that, other voters SHOULD vote
"NO" at the second vote.

We are talking about decisions with long and costly implications.
8 votes out of approximately 25 steady participants is not enough
of a basis on which to make them. I note that LLNL voted in favor
of at least one ticket that lost because of the rules. We would
not have voted in favor in July without a significant change in
the overall vote.

Overall, I think the Japan rules interpretation resulted in the
right results, whether or not they were consistent with prior votes.

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Jim Dinan wrote:

> On 6/15/12 8:05 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> It's fairly obvious that people are refraining from commenting on the mailing list.
> As one of those silent folks, IMHO, I'm not too worried about this since
> the Forum strives for consensus anyway.  I can find reasons to favor
> either set of voting rules and can read both interpretations from the
> current written rules.  I'm not too concerned about which one we choose,
> so long as we make a clear choice, update the rules, and continue to
> strive for consensus.
>  ~Jim.
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list