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

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)
by Bronis R. de Supinski 15 Jun '12

15 Jun '12

I'll make a much stronger statement. I am not concerned over hair-splitting of defining "simple majority". I am very concerned that we are engaging in hair splitting over the definition in order to decide when to include things that do NOT have a clear consensus (and abstains count against that because "don't care" and "don't know" are not NOT pro votes). I'll repeat what I said earlier: if a ticket does not have a clear consensus, the honorable thing is for the proposers to retract it (perhaps to a later date when they have established consensus). In the absebce of that, other voters SHOULD vote "NO" at the second vote. We are talking about decisions with long and costly implications. 8 votes out of approximately 25 steady participants is not enough of a basis on which to make them. I note that LLNL voted in favor of at least one ticket that lost because of the rules. We would not have voted in favor in July without a significant change in the overall vote. Overall, I think the Japan rules interpretation resulted in the right results, whether or not they were consistent with prior votes. On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Jim Dinan wrote: > On 6/15/12 8:05 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: >> It's fairly obvious that people are refraining from commenting on the mailing list. > > As one of those silent folks, IMHO, I'm not too worried about this since > the Forum strives for consensus anyway. I can find reasons to favor > either set of voting rules and can read both interpretations from the > current written rules. I'm not too concerned about which one we choose, > so long as we make a clear choice, update the rules, and continue to > strive for consensus. > > ~Jim. > _______________________________________________ > 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 in July (and beyond)
by Jim Dinan 15 Jun '12

15 Jun '12

On 6/15/12 8:05 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > It's fairly obvious that people are refraining from commenting on the mailing list. As one of those silent folks, IMHO, I'm not too worried about this since the Forum strives for consensus anyway. I can find reasons to favor either set of voting rules and can read both interpretations from the current written rules. I'm not too concerned about which one we choose, so long as we make a clear choice, update the rules, and continue to strive for consensus. ~Jim.

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond)
by Richard Graham 15 Jun '12

15 Jun '12

This is being blown way out of proportion. A very specific question was raised about the voting rules, one for which we had always made an implicit assumption about what the rule is, and even though we made an attempt a year+ ago to define precisely what the rules were, we did not cover this case. So, to give an answer, we had to make an explicit call on what abstain means, in the context of simple majority, and not in the context of what we happened to be doing - a proposal was brought forth for discussion, and without alternative suggestions, it is hard to make an alternative choice. While some may view this as a change in rules, this was in fact a clarification. The reality is that we are operating within a framework that was setup many years ago to be somewhat vague - purposefully. This seems like a good topic to bring up to the Steering Committee. Rich From: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Solt Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:45 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Cc: Main MPI Forum mailing list; mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond) I'm not blaming you for trying to put forth some reason, but I question why a group of logical people didn't question what you put forth. I disagree that the quorum at the meeting was that no==abstain. I think the consensus at the meeting was to go along with what was put before them, which happened to be no==abstain. The question is why was no==abstain brought forth at all: >From Rich: Let's clarify what happened here. I was approached off line by someone that wanted clarification of the rules, with the specific intent of preferring to abstain in some instances, and have it have the same effect as no, rather than voting no explicitly. With the fact that there were several items on the voting agenda that we knew would be close, a decision had to be made as to what "simple majority" means, so we discussed this with all folks in the room and there was no disagreement that simple majority meant more than 50% of the votes. We did delay the votes until all vote eligible members that were supposed to be present arrived. It all comes back to this. Someone pushed for no==abstain to make sure that the controversial issues would not get passed and that's where I feel wrong doing took place. After that I blame myself and I blame us as a group for allowing this to happen, but this was just wrong. Dave From: "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre(a)sandia.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 06/14/2012 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond) Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> ________________________________ Hang on a second... I wasn't trying to justify one way or the other. I really did't care what the rules are. I followed the operational procedures Jeff gave me and the voting rules Rich gave me (ie, the same ones he gave everyone in the room). I tend to agree with Dave Goodell; we had a self-reinforcing belief system because the votes were never really close. But if the quorum at the meeting had said that you need 3.14 times more yes votes than no votes to pass, that's what I would have done. Brian On 6/14/12 10:57 AM, "David Solt" <dsolt(a)us.ibm.com<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >I believe that years of Jeff stating the >voting rules at each meeting would be sufficient to correct those people >who had the incorrect interpretation of the voting rules. When it >was asked in Japan why we even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even >give a logical explanation. He said something about it providing >further feedback to those bringing the proposal, but that only makes sense >for straw votes. You can try to convince me that some people could >theoretically have been confused by how votes are counted because they >have not been active in the Forum, but you will be hard pressed to >convince >me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better. > >Dave > > > >From: > Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov<mailto:[email protected]>> >To: > Main MPI Forum mailing >list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]>> >Date: > 06/14/2012 11:27 AM >Subject: > Re: [Mpi-forum] >Voting in July (and beyond) >Sent by: > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> >________________________________________ > > > >On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote: > >>> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there >was >>> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room. >> >> I disagree. I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated >that at >> the Japan meeting. > >Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong. Nonetheless, >I don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction. > >> I don't know how people can be so out of touch with >> what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for > >> years. > > >The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have >always yielded the same result in the past. Only at the Japan meeting >did we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes >under each interpretation. > >As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is >ambiguous, >and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of >which >view that is. Years of voting in which the results match up with >someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further >reinforces >a particular viewpoint. > >-Dave > > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum > > >_______________________________________________ >mpi-forum mailing list >mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> >http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)
by Jeff Squyres 15 Jun '12

15 Jun '12

+1 on much of what Dave says. It's fairly obvious that people are refraining from commenting on the mailing list. There needs to be a discussion about this in Chicago, but I don't know if the 1st session will be suitable for it (people tend to be late, etc.). For maximum participation / input, the session should probably be mid-afternoon. I think my opinions are fairly obvious at this point, but here's a short summary: * Changing the voting rules based on one meeting is a [Very] Bad Idea * For consistency, we should finish MPI-3 with the same rules I have been using for 3-4 years. We can change after that. On Jun 14, 2012, at 2:36 PM, David Solt wrote: > I'm not blaming you for trying to put forth some reason, but I question why a group of logical people didn't question what you put forth. I disagree that the quorum at the meeting was that no==abstain. I think the consensus at the meeting was to go along with what was put before them, which happened to be no==abstain. The question is why was no==abstain brought forth at all: > > From Rich: > Let's clarify what happened here. I was approached off line by someone that wanted clarification of the rules, with the specific intent of preferring to abstain in some instances, and have it have the same effect as no, rather than voting no explicitly. With the fact that there were several items on the voting agenda that we knew would be close, a decision had to be made as to what "simple majority" means, so we discussed this with all folks in the room and there was no disagreement that simple majority meant more than 50% of the votes. We did delay the votes until all vote eligible members that were supposed to be present arrived. > > It all comes back to this. Someone pushed for no==abstain to make sure that the controversial issues would not get passed and that's where I feel wrong doing took place. After that I blame myself and I blame us as a group for allowing this to happen, but this was just wrong. > > Dave > > > > > > > From: "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre(a)sandia.gov> > To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > Date: 06/14/2012 12:46 PM > Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond) > Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > > > > Hang on a second... I wasn't trying to justify one way or the other. I > really did't care what the rules are. I followed the operational > procedures Jeff gave me and the voting rules Rich gave me (ie, the same > ones he gave everyone in the room). I tend to agree with Dave Goodell; we > had a self-reinforcing belief system because the votes were never really > close. But if the quorum at the meeting had said that you need 3.14 times > more yes votes than no votes to pass, that's what I would have done. > > Brian > > On 6/14/12 10:57 AM, "David Solt" <dsolt(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: > > >I believe that years of Jeff stating the > >voting rules at each meeting would be sufficient to correct those people > >who had the incorrect interpretation of the voting rules. When it > >was asked in Japan why we even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even > >give a logical explanation. He said something about it providing > >further feedback to those bringing the proposal, but that only makes sense > >for straw votes. You can try to convince me that some people could > >theoretically have been confused by how votes are counted because they > >have not been active in the Forum, but you will be hard pressed to > >convince > >me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better. > > > >Dave > > > > > > > >From: > > Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> > >To: > > Main MPI Forum mailing > >list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> > >Date: > > 06/14/2012 11:27 AM > >Subject: > > Re: [Mpi-forum] > >Voting in July (and beyond) > >Sent by: > > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org > >________________________________________ > > > > > > > >On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote: > > > >>> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there > >was > >>> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room. > >> > >> I disagree. I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated > >that at > >> the Japan meeting. > > > >Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong. Nonetheless, > >I don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction. > > > >> I don't know how people can be so out of touch with > >> what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for > > > >> years. > > > > > >The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have > >always yielded the same result in the past. Only at the Japan meeting > >did we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes > >under each interpretation. > > > >As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is > >ambiguous, > >and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of > >which > >view that is. Years of voting in which the results match up with > >someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further > >reinforces > >a particular viewpoint. > > > >-Dave > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > -- > Brian W. Barrett > Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software > Sandia National Laboratories > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond)
by David Solt 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

I'm not blaming you for trying to put forth some reason, but I question why a group of logical people didn't question what you put forth. I disagree that the quorum at the meeting was that no==abstain. I think the consensus at the meeting was to go along with what was put before them, which happened to be no==abstain. The question is why was no==abstain brought forth at all: >From Rich: Let's clarify what happened here. I was approached off line by someone that wanted clarification of the rules, with the specific intent of preferring to abstain in some instances, and have it have the same effect as no, rather than voting no explicitly. With the fact that there were several items on the voting agenda that we knew would be close, a decision had to be made as to what "simple majority" means, so we discussed this with all folks in the room and there was no disagreement that simple majority meant more than 50% of the votes. We did delay the votes until all vote eligible members that were supposed to be present arrived. It all comes back to this. Someone pushed for no==abstain to make sure that the controversial issues would not get passed and that's where I feel wrong doing took place. After that I blame myself and I blame us as a group for allowing this to happen, but this was just wrong. Dave From: "Barrett, Brian W" <bwbarre(a)sandia.gov> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Date: 06/14/2012 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond) Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org Hang on a second... I wasn't trying to justify one way or the other. I really did't care what the rules are. I followed the operational procedures Jeff gave me and the voting rules Rich gave me (ie, the same ones he gave everyone in the room). I tend to agree with Dave Goodell; we had a self-reinforcing belief system because the votes were never really close. But if the quorum at the meeting had said that you need 3.14 times more yes votes than no votes to pass, that's what I would have done. Brian On 6/14/12 10:57 AM, "David Solt" <dsolt(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >I believe that years of Jeff stating the >voting rules at each meeting would be sufficient to correct those people >who had the incorrect interpretation of the voting rules. When it >was asked in Japan why we even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even >give a logical explanation. He said something about it providing >further feedback to those bringing the proposal, but that only makes sense >for straw votes. You can try to convince me that some people could >theoretically have been confused by how votes are counted because they >have not been active in the Forum, but you will be hard pressed to >convince >me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better. > >Dave > > > >From: > Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> >To: > Main MPI Forum mailing >list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >Date: > 06/14/2012 11:27 AM >Subject: > Re: [Mpi-forum] >Voting in July (and beyond) >Sent by: > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >________________________________________ > > > >On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote: > >>> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there >was >>> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room. >> >> I disagree. I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated >that at >> the Japan meeting. > >Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong. Nonetheless, >I don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction. > >> I don't know how people can be so out of touch with >> what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for > >> years. > > >The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have >always yielded the same result in the past. Only at the Japan meeting >did we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes >under each interpretation. > >As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is >ambiguous, >and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of >which >view that is. Years of voting in which the results match up with >someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further >reinforces >a particular viewpoint. > >-Dave > > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ 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 in July (and beyond)
by Mohamad Chaarawi 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

On 6/14/2012 12:55 PM, Dave Goodell wrote: > FWIW, I do think it's unfortunate that your ticket did not pass (I believe that ANL even voted yes). But when you say "some of them were aware the their votes means no" and then claim "it is ridiculous to count the last 4 abstains as NO votes", then I see a contradiction. At least some of those 4 should be considered valid "effective NO" votes. Am I misunderstanding you? No they shouldn't be as an affective NO vote. When an organization votes abstain on a ticket and they know that it counts as NO, and you get back a reason that they voted so as "I did not understand the proposal, but now after carefully considering, I will vote yes next time", and that vote is counted as an effective NO, this is what I consider ridiculous. I understand the abstain category is important, but in that category there are two sub-categories: 1) I like the proposal, but I have concerns and would like to see more work done (which is OK to count as no) 2) I do not understand the proposal and do not feel qualified to make a yes/no decision (which IMO is not OK to count as no) Again I'm not discussing my ticket here, just pointing out the flaw in the voting rule at the last meeting. Mohamad

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)
by Dave Goodell 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:48 AM CDT, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote: > The ticket received 8 (yes) - 2 (no) - 6 (abstain) votes. > After contacting the people who voted no and abstain, this was a summary of the reasons: > ï¿½ 1 NO vote, because of reason X > ï¿½ 1 NO vote, because of a misunderstanding > ï¿½ 2 abstain votes because of concerns Y and Z > ï¿½ 4 abstain votes because either the voters were attending the meeting for the first time and are not familiar with the ticket, or just do not understand what is being proposed or don't care. Some of them were aware that their votes means no, and some were not. > It totally makes sense to count the 2 NO votes, and 2 of the abstains to be as NO votes, but it is ridiculous to count the last 4 abstains as NO votes. > IMO what should happen is that the people who are abstaining because of a certain concern should just vote NO (not abstain), and then we use the old rule as pass = yes > no. If we go with the Japan rule then people should just vote YES or NO, because the abstain category is useless. IMO any voting rules where a strict (yes > no) condition needs some sort of safeguard to ensure that a y/n/a count of 1/0/(N-1) or 2/1/(N-3) won't pass. Some requirement should be in place to ensure a nontrivial degree of consensus was actually achieved. I'm not sure what it should be, but "no more than 50% abstains" might be a starting point for discussion. Your ticket would have been fine under such a restriction, although it would have been close (6/16). FWIW, I do think it's unfortunate that your ticket did not pass (I believe that ANL even voted yes). But when you say "some of them were aware the their votes means no" and then claim "it is ridiculous to count the last 4 abstains as NO votes", then I see a contradiction. At least some of those 4 should be considered valid "effective NO" votes. Am I misunderstanding you? -Dave

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond)
by Barrett, Brian W 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

Hang on a second... I wasn't trying to justify one way or the other. I really did't care what the rules are. I followed the operational procedures Jeff gave me and the voting rules Rich gave me (ie, the same ones he gave everyone in the room). I tend to agree with Dave Goodell; we had a self-reinforcing belief system because the votes were never really close. But if the quorum at the meeting had said that you need 3.14 times more yes votes than no votes to pass, that's what I would have done. Brian On 6/14/12 10:57 AM, "David Solt" <dsolt(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: >I believe that years of Jeff stating the >voting rules at each meeting would be sufficient to correct those people >who had the incorrect interpretation of the voting rules. When it >was asked in Japan why we even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even >give a logical explanation. He said something about it providing >further feedback to those bringing the proposal, but that only makes sense >for straw votes. You can try to convince me that some people could >theoretically have been confused by how votes are counted because they >have not been active in the Forum, but you will be hard pressed to >convince >me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better. > >Dave > > > >From: > Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> >To: > Main MPI Forum mailing >list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> >Date: > 06/14/2012 11:27 AM >Subject: > Re: [Mpi-forum] >Voting in July (and beyond) >Sent by: > mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org >________________________________________ > > > >On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote: > >>> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there >was >>> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room. >> >> I disagree. I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated >that at >> the Japan meeting. > >Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong. Nonetheless, >I don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction. > >> I don't know how people can be so out of touch with >> what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for > >> years. > > >The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have >always yielded the same result in the past. Only at the Japan meeting >did we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes >under each interpretation. > >As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is >ambiguous, >and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of >which >view that is. Years of voting in which the results match up with >someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further >reinforces >a particular viewpoint. > >-Dave > > >_______________________________________________ >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 -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories

1 0

Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond)
by David Solt 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

I believe that years of Jeff stating the voting rules at each meeting would be sufficient to correct those people who had the incorrect interpretation of the voting rules. When it was asked in Japan why we even have an abstain vote, Brian couldn't even give a logical explanation. He said something about it providing further feedback to those bringing the proposal, but that only makes sense for straw votes. You can try to convince me that some people could theoretically have been confused by how votes are counted because they have not been active in the Forum, but you will be hard pressed to convince me that the people pushing for abstain=no in Japan didn't know better. Dave From: Dave Goodell <goodell(a)mcs.anl.gov> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <mpi-forum(a)lists.mpi-forum.org> Date: 06/14/2012 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond) Sent by: mpi-forum-bounces(a)lists.mpi-forum.org On Jun 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM CDT, David Solt wrote: >> At the Japan meeting we took consensus from the room because there was >> no clear ruling on this known to *anyone* in the room. > > I disagree. I felt there was a clear ruling on this and stated that at > the Japan meeting. Perhaps my "anyone" statement was slightly too strong. Nonetheless, I don't recall many (any?) others with a similar level of conviction. > I don't know how people can be so out of touch with > what goes on at the meetings to not know how we have been voting for > years. The way that this happens is that both interpretations of the rules have always yielded the same result in the past. Only at the Japan meeting did we encounter a set of votes that would result in different outcomes under each interpretation. As Jeff has repeatedly pointed out, the voting rules web page is ambiguous, and reading it tends to just confirm the reader's view, regardless of which view that is. Years of voting in which the results match up with someone's interpretation (true for both interpretations) further reinforces a particular viewpoint. -Dave _______________________________________________ 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 in July (and beyond)
by Mohamad Chaarawi 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

Hi All, I will use the votes received on my ticket to propose a suggestion for future voting rules. I am not discussing anything about the ticket itself, nor promoting to change the voting results at the last meeting, but just to suggest what would make sense for later. I'm just using my ticket because the votes and reasons I received for this ticket covers a lot if not all voting categories and reasons :-) The ticket received 8 (yes) - 2 (no) - 6 (abstain) votes. After contacting the people who voted no and abstain, this was a summary of the reasons: * 1 NO vote, because of reason X * 1 NO vote, because of a misunderstanding * 2 abstain votes because of concerns Y and Z * 4 abstain votes because either the voters were attending the meeting for the first time and are not familiar with the ticket, or just do not understand what is being proposed or don't care. Some of them were aware that their votes means no, and some were not. It totally makes sense to count the 2 NO votes, and 2 of the abstains to be as NO votes, but it is ridiculous to count the last 4 abstains as NO votes. IMO what should happen is that the people who are abstaining because of a certain concern should just vote NO (not abstain), and then we use the old rule as pass = yes > no. If we go with the Japan rule then people should just vote YES or NO, because the abstain category is useless. I hope that makes sense. Thanks Mohamad On 6/14/2012 11:04 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Rolf Rabenseifner wrote: > >> Was nobody looking at our rules: >> http://meetings.mpi-forum.org/secretary/voting.php >> - Measures pass on simple majority. >> - Formal votes will be taken by roll. >> If you are not present, your organization >> does not vote (effectively the same as abstain). > Please see my prior emails (from a week or two ago) about this: > > - there are multiple accepted definitions of "simple majority" > - "quorum" is not defined > - there is also a question of the definition of "not present" -- does that not present in the room? (which is how I have interpreted it, but there has been some bending of that rule on occasion) Or not present at the meeting at all? Or not present that day? Or ...? > >> Here you can see "abstain" == "not voting", >> and wiki clearly tells "simple majority" >> means more than 50% of the passed votes. > Even from this text, there is multiple possible interpretations. :-\ > >> Why was there a discussion about this? >> >> Jeff, how old is this file? > SVN says: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r312 | jsquyres | 2010-06-16 16:30:51 -0400 (Wed, 16 Jun 2010) | 2 lines > Changed paths: > M /trunk/secretary/index.php > A /trunk/secretary/voting.php > > Add voting rules > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The file has not changed since that date. > > In mails a week or two ago, I discussed the history of the MPI-3 procedures document, too. >

1 0