RE: [sv-ec] clarifications on mantis 2606 vote

Gord,
Jamie's vote was counted as stated in my email, he is
one of the 5 in favor, as your proxy.

I believe the confusion may have come from the following:
According to the procedures there were 10 voting members
during the meeting, 9 plus chair.  The chair votes in
cases of either breaking a tie or making a tie, nevertheless
chair is counted as voting member. Hence the majority
would have been 6 votes in favor to have the proposal pass.

Since most of our votes have had unanimous 'in favor',
or 'opposed' we have not had the situation where we would
ask the chair to vote since it would have not made any
difference in the outcome. However in this case my vote
as chair (had I voted, which would have been 'Opposed')
or lack thereof is considered a no vote [similar in calculation
to one abstain here], rendering the measure to fail.

We reviewed and discussed this again at the p1800WG meeting
today. We will update the sv-ec (and other subcommittees)
procedures with these clarifications.
Please let me know if there is any other issue on this.
- Mehdi


-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Vreugdenhil [mailto:gordonv@model.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:02 AM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi
Cc: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] clarifications on mantis 2606 vote

Mehdi, could you please state the clarification here.

I don't understand how a vote with 5 in favor, 3 opposed,
and 1 abstain could fail.

If Jamie's vote was not counted (as a proxy) then there
were still 4 in favor and only 3 opposed.  Also, if that
is the case, I am going to contest the result as I had
asked you about a proxy and you said it was Ok.  I would
have called in for that vote had a proxy not been Ok.

Gord.


Mehdi Mohtashemi wrote:
> As per action item during sv-ec meeting on June 15 2009, I clarified the
> voting
>
> procedures per IEEE sv-ec operating procedures with Karen Pieper.  The
> mantis
>
> item 2606 *fails to pass* based on the guidelines.
>
> Here is the information on the vote, from meeting minute [to be
> published to
>
> the sv-ec site later this week]:
>
>
>
> On Mantis 2606, id 62, there was a vote taken with the following results:
>
>           Move: Francoise  to approve mantis 2606  proposal
>  2606_proto_refs[2].pdf
>       Second: Steven
>     Abstain: Jonathan [outside of core competency]
>     Opposed: Mark, Arturo,
>              [outside of scope this ballot raised,
>               we would vote yes if the second sentence was re-phrased to
>  type declaration]
>           Steven: It reduces consensus, even though it is a better way
> to go.
>                              I am in favor of proposal but concerned it
> would trigger negative ballot.
>     Total:
>                    YES:  Dave, Ray, Jamie, Don, Francoise
>                     NO:   Mark, Arturo, Steven,
>          ABSTAIN:  Jonathan
>
> Note that based on this vote and the one in the previous sv-ec meetings,
> the procedure
>
> and policy guidelines will be updated to be more clear.
>
>
>
> - Mehdi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


-- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.