[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Jeff Hammond]

There are days where I have to ingest a substantial quantity of pills
to be able to walk and this condition is aggravated by the amount that
I have to walk and/or stand.  I don't feel that I should have to
reveal my particular physiological disposition to a collection of
people some of whom I barely know in order to express that which
should be plainly obvious from doing nothing ("null vote"), especially
since physical pain level is correlated in some instances with
depression, which make me even less inclined to communicate the
details of my physiological disposition to a room full of strangers.

Sufficient?

Jeff

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis at llnl.gov> wrote:
>
> 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



-- 
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