[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Jeff Hammond]

If abstain=no then why bother having the category at all?  Are we
trying to implement abstain="polite no" and no="cruel no"?

Why don't we vote with +1, 0 and -1, where sum>0 passes?

Jeff

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> All:
>
> Hmm. Quite the controversy. However, the rules as enforced
> in Japan are consistent with my understanding of what they
> have always been. More importantly, they are consistent
> with the wording in the bylaws. Here is what Jeff quoted:
>
>
>    a simple majority is defined as a simple majority
>    of those present and eligible to vote.
>
> Those who abstained were present and eligible to vote.
> They did not vote yes. The effect is that they voted
> "no" by this definition. If they did not want their
> vote effectively to be "no" then they should have left
> the room. I recall several instances in which someone
> was out of the room (perhaps even momentarily for a bio
> break) and Jeff recorded their vote as "not present".
> See the definition above -- they then do not count as
> present so they do not figure into the required "yes" count.
>
> As I stated, my understanding of the rules is consistent
> with the interpretation used in Japan. I would object to
> any other interpretation since the by-laws are actually
> clear on this point. I agree that the by-laws should be
> clear in general; while I think they are clear, I would
> not object to a clarifying statement being added to the
> effect that "abstentions are effectively negative votes."
> I think we have many other issues that should be made
> concrete in the by-laws and this is the least important.
> What is required to pass a first reading is probably the
> most obvious issue.
>
> Bronis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2012, Fab Tillier wrote:
>
>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:26
>>
>>> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an
>>>>> indication
>>>>> that this bylaw change was half baked.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Especially when the meeting is attended by so few people due to the
>>>> location.  It seems like a weasel tactic to pick a remote location to
>>>> change the by-laws with a single vote.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To be clear, the process document states:
>>>
>>>    For the purposes of voting, a simple majority is defined as a simple
>>>    majority of those present and eligible to vote.
>>> In the context of the document, the phrase "simple majority" is used to
>>> describe what is needed for ballots to pass; this sentence is attempting
>>> to
>>> define that phrase.  So even though the above sentence looks like a
>>> circular
>>> definition, I think it's really an open-ended definition (e.g., a google
>>> search
>>> for "simple majority definition" turns up both definitions).
>>>
>>> I was not there and don't know *exactly* what happened, so I'll refrain
>>> from
>>> commenting further.
>>
>>
>> If the bylaws are vague, we should clarify them.  We should not however
>> reinterpret them at each meeting, and should all agree on a proper
>> interpretation and stick to it, such that ambiguity is removed going
>> forward.  Allowing our bylaws to be vague enough to afford a
>> re-interpretation at each meeting does nobody any good.
>>
>> -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 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