[Mpi-forum] Voting results
Douglas Miller
dougmill at us.ibm.com
Wed May 30 13:58:47 CDT 2012
I have to "second" Fab's objection. this does seem wrong - even though it
doesn't help my ticket to pass...
_______________________________________________
Douglas Miller BlueGene Messaging Development
IBM Corp., Rochester, MN USA Bldg 030-2 A401
dougmill at us.ibm.com Douglas Miller/Rochester/IBM
Fab Tillier
<ftillier at microso
ft.com> To
Sent by: Main MPI Forum mailing list
mpi-forum-bounces <mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org>,
@lists.mpi-forum. cc
org
Subject
Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
05/30/2012 01:51
PM
Please respond to
Main MPI Forum
mailing list
<mpi-forum at lists.
mpi-forum.org>
Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09
> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have
> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know
offhand
> how past ballot results would have fared with the new definition; I am
> guessing that their results wouldn't have changed because most past
ballots
> were not as close as some of the ones from this week.
>
> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to
pass)
> was defined as the following:
>
> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes
> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no".
>
> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). There
is
> effectively only "yes" and "no".
> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past
> meeting were actually voting "no".
>
> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the room
> agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have advocated***, but
I
> was not there. :-\
>
> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine if
> a ballot passed:
>
> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes
> or, effectively:
>
> more "yes" votes than "no" votes
> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result.
IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single
meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a single
meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same kind of
process in making such significant rule changes as we do with tickets. To
be clear, I believe that this change should have been brought up one
meeting, voted in the next, and voted a second time to pass in the 3rd
meeting. Yes, it would take time, but bylaw changes should not be
undertaken lightly.
The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication
that this bylaw change was half baked.
-Fab
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120530/bae75b7f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120530/bae75b7f/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic29591.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120530/bae75b7f/attachment-0004.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mpi-forum.org/pipermail/mpi-forum/attachments/20120530/bae75b7f/attachment-0005.gif>
More information about the mpi-forum
mailing list