[Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting results

[Barrett, Brian W]

Following up on Bronis's discussion; there have been no "close" votes for first or second votes for MPI-3 prior to the Japan meeting.  The closest was the first vote for the new One-Sided chapter, at 13-0-5-1, with many of the abstains because we didn't have an implementation and it was really complicated.

There was one close vote prior in MPI-2.2, a second vote which would not have passed under the rules used in Japan.  Note, however, that MPI-2.2 operated under a different set of rules than MPI-3, so this is not necessarily applicable.

One take away from being in the room on Wednesday is that there is a strong importance to having an advocate present for voting.  The voting rules need to be clarified, no doubt in my mind, but there are a lot of organizations who give their voting members enough leeway that votes can change based on pre-vote discussion.

Brian

--
  Brian W. Barrett
  Scalable System Software Group
  Sandia National Laboratories
________________________________________
From: mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org [mpi-forum-bounces at lists.mpi-forum.org] on behalf of Bronis R. de Supinski [bronis at llnl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:20 PM
To: Main MPI Forum mailing list
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results

All:

I also meant to address another question that arose.
While I have missed some meetings, at no meeting at
which I was present to a ticket pass under the apparent
widespread misinterpretation of the rules. If one had,
I would have objected -- first, because that is not
what the by-laws say; and second, because adding something
to the standard that cannot even get a simple majority
of yes votes of THOSE PRESENT is an inherently stupid
idea (adding it; not necessarily the proposal itself).

I do not recall a particularly close vote when I was
present although I might be mistaken. The only votes
that I recall that were close were straw votes, which
do not count. Many of those have been close.

Bronis




On Wed, 30 May 2012, Bronis R. de Supinski 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
>
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum at lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum