[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Underwood, Keith D]

Yes - some might have gone yes and some might have gone no.  Lest we start discussing dimples, hanging chad, and voter intent... we have another opportunity to vote.

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Fab Tillier
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:17 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
> 
> Forum members who sent delegates and prepared voting instructions based
> on the "old" definition (inferred from precedence) may have sent different
> instructions had there not been an "abstain" option (or had it been clear that
> "abstain" was equivalent to "no").
> 
> -Fab
> 
> Underwood, Keith D wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:48
> 
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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