[Mpi-forum] Voting results

[Fab Tillier]

If someone else is afforded the privilege of voting "not present", I'd like that right too (who are you to judge whether I deserve that right?).  In fact, I was under the impression that "abstain" did exactly this...

-Fab

Bronis R. de Supinski wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 14:25:31

> 
> 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
>>