jsr355
  1. jsr355
  2. JSR355-7

Increase the minimum number of "yes" votes for JSR approval?

    Details

    • Type: Bug Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      • The current requirement of 5 yes votes for JSR approval is equivalent to approximately 1/3 of the membership of the separate ECs.
        • The equivalent number for a combined EC of 25 would be 8 yes votes.
        • For the 2012-2013 year, when the EC has 30 members, the equivalent would be 10 yes votes.
      • Should we consider the current 5-vote requirement as an absolute number (if we have this many votes then OK) or as a percentage (we need at least 2/3 of those eligible to vote?)

      The current EG consensus is that we should not change this requirement.

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          marklittle added a comment -

          If we are worried about people not voting then why not tie that into either their right to have a seat on the EC or their right to vote subsequently? For instance, OASIS has a rule that if you miss 3 meetings in a row then you lose the ability to vote until you've attended 3 consecutive meetings. That does encourage people to attend and to vote, particularly if they risk being unable to vote on something that is important for them.

          Show
          marklittle added a comment - If we are worried about people not voting then why not tie that into either their right to have a seat on the EC or their right to vote subsequently? For instance, OASIS has a rule that if you miss 3 meetings in a row then you lose the ability to vote until you've attended 3 consecutive meetings. That does encourage people to attend and to vote, particularly if they risk being unable to vote on something that is important for them.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment - - edited

          Magnus asked:

          So for a "normal" vote 5 votes is only a majority if 4 vote no and 16 don't vote. Is it also a majority if 16 abstain?

          And a "platform" vote can only be approved with 5 yes votes if only 2 vote no and 19 don't vote and Oracle is one of the 5 voting yes. Again, is this also true if 19 abstain?

          Guess I'm not clear on whether an abstain vote is a "cast vote".

          Abstentions don't count - to abstain is the same as not voting.

          Your interpretation of the "platform" situation is incorrect. Under very particular circumstances at least five "yes" votes, two-thirds of the yes and no votes cast (that is, abstentions are ignored), and a "yes" vote from Oracle are required. These requirements apply not to all (existing) platforms, but only to JSRs that define new platforms, and also to JSRs that modify the Java language (in effect, the SE platform.)

          I hope this is clear...

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - - edited Magnus asked: So for a "normal" vote 5 votes is only a majority if 4 vote no and 16 don't vote. Is it also a majority if 16 abstain? And a "platform" vote can only be approved with 5 yes votes if only 2 vote no and 19 don't vote and Oracle is one of the 5 voting yes. Again, is this also true if 19 abstain? Guess I'm not clear on whether an abstain vote is a "cast vote". Abstentions don't count - to abstain is the same as not voting. Your interpretation of the "platform" situation is incorrect. Under very particular circumstances at least five "yes" votes, two-thirds of the yes and no votes cast (that is, abstentions are ignored), and a "yes" vote from Oracle are required. These requirements apply not to all (existing) platforms, but only to JSRs that define new platforms, and also to JSRs that modify the Java language (in effect, the SE platform.) I hope this is clear...
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          Mark Little said:

          "If we are worried about people not voting then why not tie that into either their right to have a seat on the EC or their right to vote subsequently? For instance, OASIS has a rule that if you miss 3 meetings in a row then you lose the ability to vote until you've attended 3 consecutive meetings. That does encourage people to attend and to vote, particularly if they risk being unable to vote on something that is important for them."

          As you know, in JSR 348 we did introduce a rule based on the OASIS approach. Members who miss two meetings in a row lose their voting privileges until they have attended two meetings in a row. This is why AT&T, Samsung, and SK Telecom are currently non-voting members.

          We considered trying to apply similar sanctions for not voting, but were unable to come up with a suitable penalty. (Taking away the right to vote as a penalty for not voting seemed likely to be ineffective

          I guess we could consider taking away a member's seat if they missed a certain percentage of votes during a year...

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - Mark Little said: "If we are worried about people not voting then why not tie that into either their right to have a seat on the EC or their right to vote subsequently? For instance, OASIS has a rule that if you miss 3 meetings in a row then you lose the ability to vote until you've attended 3 consecutive meetings. That does encourage people to attend and to vote, particularly if they risk being unable to vote on something that is important for them." As you know, in JSR 348 we did introduce a rule based on the OASIS approach. Members who miss two meetings in a row lose their voting privileges until they have attended two meetings in a row. This is why AT&T, Samsung, and SK Telecom are currently non-voting members. We considered trying to apply similar sanctions for not voting, but were unable to come up with a suitable penalty. (Taking away the right to vote as a penalty for not voting seemed likely to be ineffective I guess we could consider taking away a member's seat if they missed a certain percentage of votes during a year...
          Hide
          marklittle added a comment -

          pcurrent said:

          "We considered trying to apply similar sanctions for not voting, but were unable to come up with a suitable penalty. (Taking away the right to vote as a penalty for not voting seemed likely to be ineffective"

          Yes, you might think that but it turns out to be remarkably effective in OASIS, especially when the percentage of voting needed to accept a resolution is modified accordingly whenever someone loses their voting rights.

          Show
          marklittle added a comment - pcurrent said: "We considered trying to apply similar sanctions for not voting, but were unable to come up with a suitable penalty. (Taking away the right to vote as a penalty for not voting seemed likely to be ineffective" Yes, you might think that but it turns out to be remarkably effective in OASIS, especially when the percentage of voting needed to accept a resolution is modified accordingly whenever someone loses their voting rights.
          Hide
          pcurran added a comment -

          We've agreed to make no change in this area.

          Show
          pcurran added a comment - We've agreed to make no change in this area.

            People

            • Assignee:
              Unassigned
              Reporter:
              pcurran
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: