[Mpi-forum] ticket 273

[Underwood, Keith D]

Yes, and I wasn't asserting anything differently.  We need rules that encompass what the forum believes should happen in the scenarios below. 

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Richard Graham
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:31 PM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
> 
> We need a clear set of rules, which we follow, regardless of how we feel
> about the outcome.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:21 AM
> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
> 
> <note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-)
> 
> There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though.  Votes that go
> 1/0/15 shouldn't pass.  Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass.  Votes
> that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that!
> 
> Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass.
> If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow?
> 
> Keith
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum-
> > bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM
> > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
> >
> > Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me
> > a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up
> > for a second vote.
> >
> > In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad
> > is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down
> > since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <jsquyres at cisco.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote:
> > >
> > >> If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand
> > >> what is
> > being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote
> > abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Hammond
> > Argonne Leadership Computing Facility
> > University of Chicago Computation Institute jhammond at alcf.anl.gov /
> > (630)
> > 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
> > https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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