| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Not true. I asked Ian and Adam, as I have asked many members (who have posted documents), if they wanted to the WG to commense work on it. They said YES.
> without a consensus on either the issue itself or on the need for such a vote.
Fair criticism. In the future, we'll discuss a vote before taking it, even straw polls. But this is no grounds for reversing things. This was an unofficial straw poll that did not count. It only provided input to the 'Proposed Conclusions.' The Proposed Conclusions were adopted because only two people objected to them. The alternative is to propose another vote, which nobody is calling for.
> Normally in this sort of group, votes are used to formalize a consensus that has already been reached.
Not so. Maximum consensus is the goal for a given document, because you want it to meet most user's needs and need 75% approval in Sponsor Ballot. When bringing a document into a WG, a simple majority vote is the norm.
> 2) The vote met resistance from the group and the chair then characterized it as a "straw vote" with no official status.
Not so. The original call for a vote stated: "Since we are still in the process of establishing official voting rights, I suggest we first conduct this as an unofficial straw poll ." This was never presented as an official vote.
>
3) The group has been advised on several occasions (when objections on other issues were raised) that there were no established procedures for voting in an IEEE Working Group. After the vote was taken and the results announced, the chair - when challenged - stated that Robert's Rules are the method for vote counting in a IEEE WG.Most IEEE working groups eventually need to establish their own Policies and Procedures to meet their own special needs. SUO will need to do the same, as we have already started to do (e.g. establishing voting rights) I never used RRO to declare official results, because I never declare official results from the vote. I simply referred to RRO in drafting Proposed Conclusions. If there were many objections, we would have scrapped the vote and started over. There were only two, so we are proceeding.
> 4) It is obvious that many of the processes in Robert's Rules were not observed.
But it was just a straw poll. We are not proceeding because we have declared the vote official. We are proceeding based on the Proposed Conclusions, which only two people have objected to. If eough people want a truly official vote, we can now conduct one, but I have not heard a single person call for this.
5) The vote (YES = 11, NO = 9, ABSTAIN = 4) shows a very divided group. At best a thin majority of YES vs NO, and clearly not a majority of all the votes cast - certainly not a majority of those eligible to vote (50% majority, not the 75% super majority frequently required in standards work).
The Proposed Conclusions acknowledge this was a thin majority.
> 6) On the basis of a "thin majority" in a "straw poll" the chair announces his official "Proposed Conclusions and Actions from Vote" - subject, of course, to there being no objections to his proposals. When multiple objections were stated, the chair deemed them to be too few to warrant a change in his proposed actions.
The did not announce official Proposed conclusions. It was nothing more than a proposal. Asking for any objections does not mean that any specific number of objections is enough to prevent things. I believe two objections, given 24 votes, is not enough to discard the Proposed Conclusions. I believe I would be doing wrong by allowing 2 objections to prevent moving forward.
>a) The chair has abused the process. This creates division and lack of trust within the group.
I'm doing nothing more than trying to move things forward within the rules and medium available. Also, some newcomers to standards groups are shocked that divisions occur, and when they sometimes get contentious. Well, this is the nature of the standards process.
> b) A "straw vote" is not a vote and no actions may proceed from it.
The straw poll was never presented as an official vote, though it was called a vote. No action was declared from it, only a proposal.
> c) Votes on issues of substance should not be taken in standards groups unless a broad consensus has developed. Only things (usually administrative) that must be decided immediately should be put to a vote without such a consensus. It is normally the role of the chair to facilitate consensus - not division.
There are several other SUO members considering submitting documents for this WG to commense work on. You seem to suggest we would need to be assured of broad consensus before even permitting the vote. I would guess many members might not pay attention to a document until it is proposed in a vote (which Ian faced). There are techniques under RRO for preventing a vote (e.g.Move to Table), but I hope things don't degenerate to that level. Otherwise, if there is a 'second,' I think any motions could be put to a vote. Of course, we'll seek maximum consensus, but majority must rule.
Jim Schoening