[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Underwood, Keith D]

Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for interpreting whether those two items passed.  The clarification of "what is required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the votes were taken.  We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the fact.  The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July... maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum