On May 31, 2012, at 6:23 AM, Bronis R. de Supinski wrote:
Because "sum>0" is a poor measure for something that
is ready for standardization. ISO standards require
unanimity. While that requirement is perhaps overly
strict, it is much better than "more in favor than
those who already recognize problems in the current form".
I agree with Bronis - the simple majority rule is not the best idea for creating standards, in particular since we are anyway always saying that we are consensus driven. I personally think a 2/3 or 3/4 majority (with either counting abstains as no or at least having a quorum for the number of yes votes) would not be unreasonable and follow the spirit of the MPI forum better.
To also second something else: I fully agree that we need a better documentation about the process and that this is not restricted to the votes. In addition to the requirements for readings, that Bronis mentioned, it would also be good to define what we consider ticket 0 and what not (we have gotten very open on this the closer the deadline came, which in my opinion is exactly the wrong thing to do), what are the time requirements to make documents available, when and what can we reread within one meeting, the exact role and duties of the chapter committees, when and how many reviews/reviewers are needed for tickets, etc.
Martin
On Wed, 30 May 2012, Jeff Hammond wrote:
If abstain=no then why bother having the category at all? Are we
trying to implement abstain="polite no" and no="cruel no"?
Why don't we vote with +1, 0 and -1, where sum>0 passes?
Jeff
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Bronis R. de Supinski <bronis@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@lists.mpi-forum.org
http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@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@alcf.anl.gov / (630) 252-5381
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffhammond
https://wiki.alcf.anl.gov/parts/index.php/User:Jhammond
_______________________________________________
mpi-forum mailing list
mpi-forum@lists.mpi-forum.orghttp://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum