May 2012 - mpi-forum - mailman3.cels.anl.gov

ticket 273
by Mohamad Chaarawi 30 May '12

30 May '12

Hi All, I'm still trying to figure out why ticket 273 was voted down. At the last meeting, I would say there was a consensus that the non blocking collective I/O ticket (273) was ready to be voted in. Nobody expressed an objection after me removing the shared file pointer nbc routines and re-reading the draft. All the I/O chapter committee reviewed the draft and commented on the ticket that it looks good. At the Japan meeting, we get 8 yes , 2 nos, and 6 abstains, which under the new rules marks the ticket as failed. None from our organization could attend the meeting to really understand what the 2 no votes were for, and why 6 organizations abstained. If the abstains are because people don't care or don't understand what is being voted on or missed the vote (which are the reasons why I vote abstain), then the new voting rule doesn't really make sense. If the abstains where for something else, then the votes should be NO. So could someone mention why this was voted down? Thanks, Mohamad

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

Yes - some might have gone yes and some might have gone no. Lest we start discussing dimples, hanging chad, and voter intent... we have another opportunity to vote. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Fab Tillier > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:17 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results > > Forum members who sent delegates and prepared voting instructions based > on the "old" definition (inferred from precedence) may have sent different > instructions had there not been an "abstain" option (or had it been clear that > "abstain" was equivalent to "no"). > > -Fab > > Underwood, Keith D wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:48 > > > Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for > > interpreting whether those two items passed. The clarification of > > "what is required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting > > before the votes were taken. We can't change the interpretation of a > > vote after the fact. The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote > again in July... > > maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01 PM > >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results > >> > >> Yes: > >> > >> - iFile: #273 > >> - FT: #323 > >> > >> > >> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules > >>> have passed if we used the US/Europe rules? > >>> > >>> -d > >>> > >>> > >>> On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 > >>>> > >>>>> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have > >>>>> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't > >>>>> know offhand how past ballot results would have fared with the new > >>>>> definition; I am guessing that their results wouldn't have changed > >>>>> because most past ballots were not as close as some of the ones > >>>>> from this week. > >>>>> > >>>>> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs > >>>>> to > >>>>> pass) was defined as the following: > >>>>> > >>>>> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes > >>>>> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) > "no". > >>>>> > >>>>> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). > >>>>> There is effectively only "yes" and "no". > >>>>> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this > >>>>> past meeting were actually voting "no". > >>>>> > >>>>> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the > >>>>> room agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have > >>>>> advocated***, but I was not there. :-\ > >>>>> > >>>>> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to > >>>>> determine if a ballot passed: > >>>>> > >>>>> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes or, effectively: > >>>>> > >>>>> more "yes" votes than "no" votes > >>>>> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. > >>>> > >>>> IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a > >>>> single > >> meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a > >> single meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the > >> same kind of process in making such significant rule changes as we do > >> with tickets. To be clear, I believe that this change should have > >> been brought up one meeting, voted in the next, and voted a second > >> time to pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it would take time, but bylaw > >> changes should not be undertaken lightly. > >>>> > >>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an > >>>> indication that this bylaw change was half baked. > >>>> > >>>> -Fab > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> mpi-forum mailing list > >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jeff Squyres > >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com > >> For corporate legal information go to: > >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpi-forum mailing list > >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Fab Tillier 30 May '12

30 May '12

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

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Jeff Squyres 30 May '12

30 May '12

On May 30, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote: > And, would any of the tickets that passed in the US not have passed under the "new" rules? I have not checked the prior ballots. > I don't believe this hasn't been a major issue in the past, and there has always been a discussion of things that was basically "if a vote goes 6/5/5 (yes/no/abstain), it really shouldn't pass". That isn't consensus, and we always talk about being a consensus based organization. To be fair, Brian (who took the votes for me, and did an outstanding job) asked me specifically about this point last week. I told him that our prior precedent has always been that the vote final results are the vote final results -- consensus or not. IMNSHO: the "consensus" element of our community is really focused on straw votes and first votes. E.g., if a proposal's straw vote shows a high degree of non-consensus, then the author should really re-work it and strive for larger consensus. Similarly, if a first vote passes but has lots of no votes or abstains, we as a consensus-striving community should re-work the proposal for larger consensus (and therefore probably reset the clock) -- potentially even postponing the 2nd vote, etc. FWIW: All of these issues are definitely magnified by the fact that the sun has now set on getting something into MPI-3 -- there were a *huge* number of proposals and readings over the past 3 meetings in final attempts to get things into MPI-3. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Fab Tillier 30 May '12

30 May '12

Forum members who sent delegates and prepared voting instructions based on the "old" definition (inferred from precedence) may have sent different instructions had there not been an "abstain" option (or had it been clear that "abstain" was equivalent to "no"). -Fab Underwood, Keith D wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 12:12:48 > Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for > interpreting whether those two items passed. The clarification of "what is > required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the > votes were taken. We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the > fact. The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July... > maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01 PM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results >> >> Yes: >> >> - iFile: #273 >> - FT: #323 >> >> >> On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Darius Buntinas wrote: >> >>> >>> Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules >>> have passed if we used the US/Europe rules? >>> >>> -d >>> >>> >>> On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >>> >>>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 >>>> >>>>> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have >>>>> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know >>>>> offhand how past ballot results would have fared with the new >>>>> definition; I am guessing that their results wouldn't have changed >>>>> because most past ballots were not as close as some of the ones from >>>>> this week. >>>>> >>>>> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to >>>>> pass) was defined as the following: >>>>> >>>>> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes >>>>> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no". >>>>> >>>>> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). >>>>> There is effectively only "yes" and "no". >>>>> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past >>>>> meeting were actually voting "no". >>>>> >>>>> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the >>>>> room agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have >>>>> advocated***, but I was not there. :-\ >>>>> >>>>> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine >>>>> if a ballot passed: >>>>> >>>>> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes or, effectively: >>>>> >>>>> more "yes" votes than "no" votes >>>>> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. >>>> >>>> IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single >> meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a >> single meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same >> kind of process in making such significant rule changes as we do with >> tickets. To be clear, I believe that this change should have been >> brought up one meeting, voted in the next, and voted a second time to >> pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it would take time, but bylaw changes >> should not be undertaken lightly. >>>> >>>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an >>>> indication that this bylaw change was half baked. >>>> >>>> -Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mpi-forum mailing list >>>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Squyres >> jsquyres(a)cisco.com >> For corporate legal information go to: >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Darius Buntinas 30 May '12

30 May '12

I agree with you, I'm just concerned with the change in rules. I too would be interested to see if we passed anything that wouldn't have passed under Japan rules. -d On May 30, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Underwood, Keith D wrote: > And, would any of the tickets that passed in the US not have passed under the "new" rules? I don't believe this hasn't been a major issue in the past, and there has always been a discussion of things that was basically "if a vote goes 6/5/5 (yes/no/abstain), it really shouldn't pass". That isn't consensus, and we always talk about being a consensus based organization. > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- >> bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Darius Buntinas >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:57 PM >> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list >> Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results >> >> >> Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules have >> passed if we used the US/Europe rules? >> >> -d >> >> >> On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: >> >>> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 >>> >>>> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have >>>> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know >>>> offhand how past ballot results would have fared with the new >>>> definition; I am guessing that their results wouldn't have changed >>>> because most past ballots were not as close as some of the ones from this >> week. >>>> >>>> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to >>>> pass) was defined as the following: >>>> >>>> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes >>>> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no". >>>> >>>> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). >>>> There is effectively only "yes" and "no". >>>> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past >>>> meeting were actually voting "no". >>>> >>>> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the >>>> room agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have >>>> advocated***, but I was not there. :-\ >>>> >>>> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine >>>> if a ballot passed: >>>> >>>> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes or, effectively: >>>> >>>> more "yes" votes than "no" votes >>>> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. >>> >>> IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single >> meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a single >> meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same kind of >> process in making such significant rule changes as we do with tickets. To be >> clear, I believe that this change should have been brought up one meeting, >> voted in the next, and voted a second time to pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it >> would take time, but bylaw changes should not be undertaken lightly. >>> >>> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication that >> this bylaw change was half baked. >>> >>> -Fab >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpi-forum mailing list >>> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >>> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

Everyone should note, however, that the answer is irrelevant for interpreting whether those two items passed. The clarification of "what is required to pass" was done in the minds of everybody voting before the votes were taken. We can't change the interpretation of a vote after the fact. The only redress (if people want one) would be to vote again in July... maybe voting rules should get their own half day session :-P > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Squyres > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:01 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results > > Yes: > > - iFile: #273 > - FT: #323 > > > On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > > > > > Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules have > passed if we used the US/Europe rules? > > > > -d > > > > > > On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > > > >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 > >> > >>> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have > >>> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know > >>> offhand how past ballot results would have fared with the new > >>> definition; I am guessing that their results wouldn't have changed > >>> because most past ballots were not as close as some of the ones from > this week. > >>> > >>> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to > >>> pass) was defined as the following: > >>> > >>> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes > >>> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no". > >>> > >>> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). > >>> There is effectively only "yes" and "no". > >>> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past > >>> meeting were actually voting "no". > >>> > >>> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the > >>> room agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have > >>> advocated***, but I was not there. :-\ > >>> > >>> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine > >>> if a ballot passed: > >>> > >>> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes or, effectively: > >>> > >>> more "yes" votes than "no" votes > >>> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. > >> > >> IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single > meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a single > meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same kind of > process in making such significant rule changes as we do with tickets. To be > clear, I believe that this change should have been brought up one meeting, > voted in the next, and voted a second time to pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it > would take time, but bylaw changes should not be undertaken lightly. > >> > >> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication > that this bylaw change was half baked. > >> > >> -Fab > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> mpi-forum mailing list > >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquyres(a)cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Jeff Squyres 30 May '12

30 May '12

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. -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Underwood, Keith D 30 May '12

30 May '12

And, would any of the tickets that passed in the US not have passed under the "new" rules? I don't believe this hasn't been a major issue in the past, and there has always been a discussion of things that was basically "if a vote goes 6/5/5 (yes/no/abstain), it really shouldn't pass". That isn't consensus, and we always talk about being a consensus based organization. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:mpi-forum- > bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org] On Behalf Of Darius Buntinas > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:57 PM > To: Main MPI Forum mailing list > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results > > > Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules have > passed if we used the US/Europe rules? > > -d > > > On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > > > Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 > > > >> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have > >> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know > >> offhand how past ballot results would have fared with the new > >> definition; I am guessing that their results wouldn't have changed > >> because most past ballots were not as close as some of the ones from this > week. > >> > >> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to > >> pass) was defined as the following: > >> > >> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes > >> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no". > >> > >> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). > >> There is effectively only "yes" and "no". > >> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past > >> meeting were actually voting "no". > >> > >> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the > >> room agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have > >> advocated***, but I was not there. :-\ > >> > >> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine > >> if a ballot passed: > >> > >> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes or, effectively: > >> > >> more "yes" votes than "no" votes > >> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. > > > > IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single > meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a single > meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same kind of > process in making such significant rule changes as we do with tickets. To be > clear, I believe that this change should have been brought up one meeting, > voted in the next, and voted a second time to pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it > would take time, but bylaw changes should not be undertaken lightly. > > > > The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication that > this bylaw change was half baked. > > > > -Fab > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > mpi-forum mailing list > > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting results
by Jeff Squyres 30 May '12

30 May '12

Yes: - iFile: #273 - FT: #323 On May 30, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Darius Buntinas wrote: > > Would any of the tickets that were voted down with the Japan rules have passed if we used the US/Europe rules? > > -d > > > On May 30, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Fab Tillier wrote: > >> Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, 30 May 2012 at 11:36:09 >> >>> 2. The definition of "simple majority" was changed from how I have >>> computed whether ballots passed or failed in the past. I don't know offhand >>> how past ballot results would have fared with the new definition; I am >>> guessing that their results wouldn't have changed because most past ballots >>> were not as close as some of the ones from this week. >>> >>> From my understanding, "simple majority" (i.e., what a vote needs to pass) >>> was defined as the following: >>> >>> floor(total_eligible_orgs_attending / 2) + 1 "yes" votes >>> Meaning: abstains and misses count as "not yes", or (effectively) "no". >>> >>> *** With these rules, I see no meaning for "abstain" (or "miss"). There is >>> effectively only "yes" and "no". >>> *** Meaning: everyone who thought they were abstaining at this past >>> meeting were actually voting "no". >>> >>> I understand that this was discussed in Japan and everyone in the room >>> agreed to these rules. ***It is not what I would have advocated***, but I >>> was not there. :-\ >>> >>> In all prior meetings, I used the following computation to determine if >>> a ballot passed: >>> >>> floor(total_yes_and_no_votes / 2) + 1 "yes" votes >>> or, effectively: >>> >>> more "yes" votes than "no" votes >>> Meaning: abstains and misses do not count towards the result. >> >> IMO this kind of change is not something that should happen in a single meeting. Just like we don't make large changes to the standard in a single meeting, I feel very strongly that the MPI Forum follow the same kind of process in making such significant rule changes as we do with tickets. To be clear, I believe that this change should have been brought up one meeting, voted in the next, and voted a second time to pass in the 3rd meeting. Yes, it would take time, but bylaw changes should not be undertaken lightly. >> >> The fact that some votes were still recorded as 'abstain' is an indication that this bylaw change was half baked. >> >> -Fab >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpi-forum mailing list >> mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > > _______________________________________________ > mpi-forum mailing list > mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Jeff Squyres jsquyres(a)cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/

1 0