[Mpi-forum] Voting results

Jeff Hammond jhammond at alcf.anl.gov
Wed May 30 13:57:14 CDT 2012

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier <ftillier at microsoft.com> 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

Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the
location.  It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to
change the by-laws with a single vote.


Jeff Hammond
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
University of Chicago Computation Institute
jhammond at alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381

More information about the mpi-forum mailing list