[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Darius Buntinas]

I agree with you, I'm just concerned with the change in rules.  I too would be interested to see if we passed anything that wouldn't have passed under Japan rules.

-d



On May 30, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpi-forum mailing list
> mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum