[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Underwood, Keith D]

And, would any of the tickets that passed in the US not have passed under the "new" rules?  I don't believe this hasn't been a major issue in the past, and there has always been a discussion of things that was basically "if a vote goes 6/5/5 (yes/no/abstain), it really shouldn't pass".  That isn't consensus, and we always talk about being a consensus based organization. 

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Darius Buntinas
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:57 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
> 
> 
> 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