[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Jeff Squyres]

Yes:

- iFile: #273
- FT: #323


On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Darius Buntinas wrote:

> 
> Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules have passed if we used the US/Europe rules?
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote:
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum


-- 
Jeff Squyres
jsquyres at cisco.com
For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/