Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes


Mike,

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately I do not agree with the constraints of the motion. I believe that my previous emails show that within the 802.11 P&P , LMSC P&P, and previous actions and events that have occurred in our WG over time, this has been adequately addressed. This is with respect to the Chairs', and Members positions, action, and authority.  I believe that the Chair decides procedural actions as we discussed privately recently, and would not like to see a dilution of that procedural authority or role. My decision is in conjunction with the various SEC emails on the topic I have reviewed. This is not withstanding the point that Roger Marks expatiated on the subject of the rules-change moratorium. Therefore, my vote at this time is Disapproval of the motion.

Respectfully,

Stuart
_______________________________

Stuart J. Kerry
Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG

Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
United States of America.

Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
_______________________________







Mike Takefman <tak@cisco.com>

Sent by:
owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org

12/17/2003 13:22

       
        To:        
        cc:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
(bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
        Subject:        Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes

        Classification:        





The ballot closes on December 30, 2003 at noon EST.

I will be sending out an email with the current results
later this week.

But in general, I need more responses from people.

thanks,

mike

stuart.kerry@philips.com wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Please excuse my ignorance but please remind me of the closing date of
> the 35 day ballot. In the light of the forthcoming holidays, I do not
> want to miss this important question and miss placing my vote on record.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stuart
> _______________________________
>
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>
> Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
>
> Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
> Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
> Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
> eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> _______________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>*
>
> Sent by:
> owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
>
> 12/17/2003 09:52
>
>        
>         To:        Mike Takefman <tak@cisco.com>
>         cc:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> (bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
>         Subject:        Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot
> on Roll Call Votes
>
>         Classification:        
>
>
>
>
>
> I vote Disapprove.
>
> We have heard about the use of roll-call votes to separate voters from
> non-voters. Each WG has a need to handle this problem, and each has a
> long tradition of solving it effectively. In 802.16, for instance, we
> use voting tokens. For us, this a more efficient solution than roll-call
> voting.
>
> We have also heard that a forced roll-call voting is somehow tied to
> "block voting." However, "block voting" is not prohibited, or even
> mentioned, in the P&P. The P&P simply gives the WG Chair the authority
> to "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and,
> if so, treat that  organizations' vote as one (with the approval of the
> Executive Committee)." Since the Chair makes the procedural decisions,
> the Chair already has the power to order a roll call vote if that will
> assist his or her determination or help prepare supporting material for
> presenting a case to the EC.
>
> Since I see no need for this P&P change, I am, by default, opposed. We
> seem to have reached a general consensus that our P&P should be less,
> not more, specific. It was also my understanding that we (informally)
> agreed to operate under a rules-change moratorium while Mat revises the
> P&P format. Because of that moratorium, we put even high-priority rules
> changes on the back burner.
>
> Finally, there is the question of the possible negative impact of this
> rules change. I certainly see such potential. The proposal would allow
> 20% of the membership to force a group to spend up to 20% of its time
> counting the roll (not to mention the time administering the motion to
> initiate the roll call vote). That is, in my view, an unacceptable
> inefficiency of process. And the real cost to the group's progress can
> be much closer to 100%. For instance, in 802.16, we finalize the group's
> progress for the week in a dense Closing Plenary. Giving up 20% of the
> Closing Plenary to roll calls could cost us much more than 20% of our
> week's progress.
>
> The WG Chair has a lot of responsibility and can't carry it out without
> the ability to manage the agenda. This P&P change would make the agenda
> even more unpredictable. It could also easily backfire and result in a
> WG being "dominated by an organization" whose tactic is to force
> roll-call votes.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>  >Dear EC Members,
>  >
>  >as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
>  >EC meeting I am starting a (35 day)  ballot on
>  >the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
>  >to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
>  >(and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
>  >earlier).
>  >
>  >I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
>  >during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
>  >the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
>  >to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
>  >
>  >The language you will find enclosed is different (and
>  >I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
>  >
>  >1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
>  >(less of a run-on sentence).
>  >2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
>  >by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
>  >motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
>  >be used as a delaying tactic.
>  >
>  >Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
>  >sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
>  >was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
>  >has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
>  >but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
>  >
>  >cheers,
>  >
>  >mike
>  >--
>  >Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
>  >Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
>  >Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>  >3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>  >voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991
>  >
>  >
>  >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revisi 1.doc
> (WDBN/MSWD) (0023B7AD)
>  >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802_RollCall_P&P.pdf (PDF /CARO) (0023B7AE)
>
>
>


--
Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991