[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Bronis R. de Supinski]

I disagree. They are able to enter the room; they can leave it.
More importantly, if we had anyone who had such impairments, I
am certain that we would allow them to voice themselves as "not present".

On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote:

> I would like it noted that the following is extremely unfriendly to
> anyone with mobility problems and probably not ADA-compliant.
>
> "If they did not want their vote effectively to be "no" then they
> should have left the room."
>
> 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
>