The way to make sure that 1/0/17 votes don't pass is for a few of the 17 abstains to grow a pair and vote "no" if they do not want the vote to pass. By induction, I believe that 8/1/7 should pass because if 7 voters have no reason to vote "no" and 8 of the 9 that care think it should pass, then that means the proposal is pretty good. Not universally exciting perhaps, but still worthy of inclusion in the standard. Abstain votes seem to indicate either (1) the voter does not feel qualified to evaluate the ticket or (2) the voter is too political correct aka cowardly to express a useful opinion. In the case of (1), abstain should really mean nothing and not "no" so that unqualified voters don't inadvertently sink good proposals just because they don't care about or don't understand them. In the case of (2), if I thought I could influence Fortune 500 companies to do the right thing, I would go after much bigger fish than MPI. Jeff On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Underwood, Keith D <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, and I wasn't asserting anything differently. �We need rules that encompass what the forum believes should happen in the scenarios below.
Keith
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi-forum- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Graham Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:31 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
We need a clear set of rules, which we follow, regardless of how we feel about the outcome.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi-forum- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Underwood, Keith D Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:21 AM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
<note to self: don't eat Jeff's brownies> :-)
There are scenarios we need to address in the voting, though. �Votes that go 1/0/15 shouldn't pass. �Votes that go 6/5/5 probably shouldn't pass. �Votes that go 8/1/7 clearly suck, and we should stop doing that!
Seriously, though, it is not immediately clear that an 8/1/7 vote should pass. If there is that much apathy about a ticket, does the standard need to grow?
Keith
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:mpi-forum- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Hammond Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:49 PM To: Main MPI Forum mailing list Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] ticket 273
Given that not being in the room means abstain, this new rule gives me a strong incentive to bake laxative-laced brownies when #281 goes up for a second vote.
In other words, I agree that the new rules are stupid and that Mohamad is quite justified in being annoyed at his ticket being voted down since it was clearly favored by everyone who cared to voice an opinion.
Jeff
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Jeff Squyres <[email protected]> wrote:
On May 30, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Mohamad Chaarawi wrote:
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.
+1
-- Jeff Squyres [email protected] For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute [email protected] / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
-- Jeff Hammond Argonne Leadership Computing Facility University of Chicago Computation Institute [email protected] / (630) 252-5381 http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond