OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

kmip message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [kmip] Voting by email?

Managing electronic ballots is a headache for the chairs.  This is especially true for email ballots, but it applies to the web-based ones as well to some degree.


IMO, it’s MUCH more efficient to get the discussion done on the list and, most importantly, see if anyone objects to the proposal on the list before it comes to a vote.  Voting in the meetings is normally MUCH more efficient in this manner, by far:


-          Make a motion to adopt a proposal

-          Second the motion

-          Chair: “any objection to accepting the motion by unanimous consent”?

-          TC – silence

-          Chair: “Hearing none, the motion is carried.


30 seconds max. Only in the case where someone objects do you have to do a roll call vote.  And that can be avoided by tabling the motion or having the proposer of the motion withdraw it from consideration at the current meeting.  The discussion can then be taken back to the list and the motion re-made or pulled from the table at the next meeting if the issues get resolved.


Having co-chaired a fairly large TC (SSTC) for 3 years, I assure you this is quite efficient and a LOT less work for the chairs.  And given the time commitment they already make to the TC work, that should also be a consideration for all of us J.


Rob Philpott

RSA, the Security Division of EMC
Senior Technologist | e-Mail: robert.philpott@rsa.com | Office: (781) 515-7115 | Mobile: (617) 510-0893


From: Jon Callas [mailto:jon@pgp.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 2:41 PM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [kmip] Voting by email?



On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:24 AM, <robert.philpott@rsa.com> wrote:

IMO, email voting is not likely to "speed things up".  An email vote is considered an "electronic ballot" and is treated the same as a ballot using the web-based Kavi ballot system.  The TC Process requires electronic ballots to remain open for a minimum of 7 days.


Also, unless the TC has adopted the standing rule described below (which we have not done), the motion/second to do an email/Kavi ballot must be done during a TC meeting with quorum present.  So, at the next TC meeting, we could move to start an electronic email ballot, but we can’t close it until a minimum of 7 days have passed.


In general, non-f2f TC meetings work most effectively if as much discussion as possible on important items is driven to the email list. The meetings can then focus as much as possible on items that simply require some clarification and voting.


For info on electronic balloting in TC’s, see http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#voting:

“Electronic Voting: TCs may conduct electronic ballots, either by using the TC’s general mail list or the publicly archived electronic voting functionality provided by OASIS. The minimum period allowed for electronic voting shall be seven days; the TC may specify a longer voting period for a particular electronic ballot. Any Specification Ballot conducted as an electronic ballot must permit each voter to choose "yes", "no" or "abstain."

“A motion to open an electronic ballot must be made in a TC meeting unless the TC has adopted a standing rule to allow this motion to be made on the TC’s general email list. When such a rule has been adopted, motions made on the mail list must also be seconded and discussed on that list.”

Okay, it sounds to me like we're in mostly violent agreement.


I agree completely with your comment that as much should be done on email lists as possible. This morning, it took us twenty-plus minutes on the call to do a roll call and achieve quorum. Yes, that can likely easily halve itself, but we're still consuming a large part of the meeting in pure overhead.


When I said "email" I mean more of an electronic ballot of any sort. I really don't care what the mechanism is, I just want more effective use of the phone call.


If the web-based voting has higher latency, that's too bad, but I think we can get higher throughput that way. In most ballots, it's going to be mostly obvious where things are going, anyway. For example, with Matt's binary alignment proposal, we're mostly in agreement on it with just one point open for debate. That debate's likely to sort itself out on the mailing list. We can thus use the valuable phone time for things that are best done on the phone other than running down a roll call. That's the sort of boring, repetitive task that computers are ideal for solving.




Jon Callas         

CTO, CSO           

PGP Corporation         Tel: +1 (650) 319-9016

200 Jefferson Drive     Fax: +1 (650) 319-9001

Menlo Park, CA 94025    PGP: ed15 5bdf cd41 adfc 00f3

USA                          28b6 52bf 5a46 bc98 e63d





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]