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" <[email protected]> To: "Main MPI Forum mailing list" <[email protected]> Date: 06/14/2012 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] [EXTERNAL] Re: Voting in July (and beyond) Sent by: [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" <[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 <[email protected]> To: Main MPI Forum mailing list <[email protected]> Date: 06/14/2012 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [Mpi-forum] Voting in July (and beyond) Sent by: [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 [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

-- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories _______________________________________________ mpi-forum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mpi-forum.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mpi-forum