From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sat Jul 14 10:36:36 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_sY9dCe7fMVONrbfxM46Yzg)" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:34:52 -0400 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 07/14/2007 01:34:53 PM, Serialize complete at 07/14/2007 01:34:53 PM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_sY9dCe7fMVONrbfxM46Yzg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable With more than two alternatives no voting system is fair. This is Arrow's = Impossibility Theorem. The world plays around with Proportional Voting,=20 Single Non Transferable Voting, but this just patches one problem while=20 creating another. This is the nature of the beast and we need to deal=20 with it.=20 But I certainly agree that with more time to review the standard and=20 process more comments, I could have persuaded more committee members to=20 vote "No, with comments". But the time was simply not there. I think=20 that should be a greater concern, that we went to a vote with comments=20 that had been submitted but not yet discussed, and that even these=20 comments represent a review of only a small portion of the DIS.=20 I'd also note that the members who voted against the No and Abstain=20 positions were predominately those who joined just recently, at one of the = last 2 or 3 meetings. If we were able to give these new members more time = to read the DIS and the comments processed by V1, as well as for them to=20 acquaint themselves better with how JTC1 ballots work, I think we could=20 have reached a consensus on the "No" vote.=20 So I agree with you in principle that more time would have been preferred, = but not just more time for debate, but more time to review and discuss=20 comments as well.=20 -Rob =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert=5Fweir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ "Tom Ngo" =20 Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org 07/14/2007 01:05 PM Please respond to incits-v1@incits-v1.org To cc Subject RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13 I mean this in the most constructive, even-handed way possible: =20 =B7 I interpret a yes/no vote on ?X with Comments? to ask whether=20 the voter considers ?X with Comments? to be better than ?Y with Comments?=20 or ?Z with Comments?, i.e., the best of the three. =B7 We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between=20 two alternatives, ?X with Comments? and ?Y with Comments?, would you=20 prefer ?X with Comments?? =20 I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I?m just=20 pointing out that given a bit more voting time, there may well be room for = arriving at consensus on more limited statements.=20 =20 From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] = On Behalf Of robert=5Fweir@us.ibm.com Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:55 AM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on=20 2007-07-13 =20 >=20 > The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in = the > notes >=20 > [Section 8] > 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the > Chairman > 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls > 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with > comments"; denied by the Chairman These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said.=20 The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the=20 attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee. =20 Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to = reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote. The=20 ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who=20 was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their=20 mind. How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of=20 "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming=20 from you was out of order.=20 -Rob --Boundary_(ID_sY9dCe7fMVONrbfxM46Yzg) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
With more than two alternatives no v= oting system is fair.  This is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.  The world plays around with Proportional Voting, Single Non Transferable Voting, but this just patches one problem while creating another.  This is the nature of the beast and we need to deal with it.  

But I certainly agree that with more time to review the standard and process more comments, I could have persuad= ed more committee members to vote "No, with comments".  But the time was simply not there.  I think that should be a greater conce= rn, that we went to a vote with comments that had been submitted but not yet discussed, and that even these comments represent a review of only a small portion of the DIS.  

I'd also note that the members who v= oted against the No and Abstain positions were predominately those who joined just recently, at one of the last 2 or 3 meetings.  If we were able to give these new members more time to read the DIS and the comments proces= sed by V1, as well as for them to acquaint themselves better with how JTC1 ballots work, I think we could have reached a consensus on the "No&quo= t; vote.  

So I agree with you in principle that more time would have been preferred, but not just more time for debate, but more time to review and discuss comments as well.

-Rob

=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert=5Fweir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/



"Tom Ngo" &= lt;Tom.Ngo@nextpage.com>
Sent by: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.o= rg

07/14/2007 01:05 PM
Please respond to
incits-v1@incits-v1.org

To
<incits-v1@incits-v1.org>
cc
Subject
RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft M= inutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13





I mean this in the most constru= ctive, even-handed way possible:
 
=B7         <= font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman">I interpret a yes/no vote on “X with Comments” to ask whether the= voter considers “X with Comments” to be better than “Y with Com= ments” or “Z with Comments”, i.e., the best of the three.
=B7         <= font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman">We never voted on questions like this: given a choice between two alter= natives, “X with Comments” and “Y with Comments”, would you = prefer “X with Comments”?
 
I am not claiming that Stephen made a motion of the latter form. I’m just pointing out that given a = bit more voting time, there may well be room for arriving at consensus on more limited statements.
 
From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.o= rg [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert=5Fweir@us= .ibm.com
Sent:
Saturday, July 14, 2007 10:55 AM
To:
incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject:
RE: INCITS-V1: PLEASE PROOF: Draft Minutes of the V1 Meeting on 2007-07-13

 


>
> The notes look good, here are some important points that I didn't see in the
> notes
>
> [Section 8]
> 1. Motion by Stephen for a vote of "Yes, with comments"; denied by the
> Chairman
> 2. The names of those who motioned for each of the straw polls
> 3. The motion by Stephen for a reconsideration of a vote of "Yes, with
> comments"; denied by the Chairman



These are meeting minutes, not a transcript of everything that was said.  The obligation is to record the time the meeting started and ended, the attendance, the topics discussed and decisions made by the committee.  


Also, every parliamentary authority that I'm aware of reserves a motion to reconsider to a person who voted on the prevailing side of the vote.  The ideas is that it is pointless to vote on an item again unless someone who was on the prevailing side of that vote indicated that they changed their mind.  How else could the results change? Since you voted in favor of "yes, with comments", a motion which lost, a motion to reconsider coming from you was out of order.


-Rob

= --Boundary_(ID_sY9dCe7fMVONrbfxM46Yzg)--