Re: [802SEC] Avoiding Appeal Pain in the Future
Jerry,
You can probably save a lot of time sending emails and tracking
people down by looking at the Face2Face registration website and
check what people marked as their primary group of interest for
the March'03 meeting.
For the 35 conflicted members in Bill's list, only 5 of them
indicated 802.20 as their primary choice. I would be happy to
send you my spreadsheet of same to help if you would like.
cheers,
mike
Jerry1upton@aol.com wrote:
> Mike and Geoff,
>
> Regarding Affiliations, at the January Interim 802.20 instituted a procedure requiring attendees to state their affiliation using a sign-in book. A voting member must state their affiliation and sign-in to obtain a voting token. The procedure references and states the ANSI rules. For further details, the procedure is stated in the 802.20 Working Group Policies and Procedures in Appendix B as posted on the 802.20 site.
>
> Regarding individuals with multi-sign participation questions/issues, I plan to resolve the questions by written declaration by each individual. I would hope to resolve most by email. If not resolved before the election, I will have written declarations for people to sign before receiving a voting token. Some people may not receive a token or choose not to receive a token.
>
> Tony, I do need the official list of multi-sign individuals to work the plan. I asked you in Vancouver for the list.
>
> Sorry for not responding sooner, I have been traveling and working 802.20 items.
> Regards,
> Jerry Upton
>
> In a message dated 2/13/2004 1:06:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, gthompso@nortelnetworks.com writes:
>
>
>>Mike-
>>
>>See below, comment mixed in
>>
>>At 12:51 PM 2/13/2004 -0500, Mike Takefman wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dear EC Members,
>>
>>At the January meeting I agreed to write an email to
>>start discussion on the issue of elections in dot20.
>>The goal of this email is to be proactive so that
>>we have a high probability of avoiding a surge of
>>appeals following the March meeting.
>>
>>At our EC meeting in March 2003 and at subsequent
>>meetings the following issues have been raised.
>>
>>0) That an organization is attempting to dominate the WG.
>>1) To further that end, many companies sent a large number of
>> voters.
>>2) A large number of consultants were sent to the March'03
>> meeting to bolster the position of their sponsors, and the
>> relationship between those consulting firms and their
>> sponsors was not declared as per ANSI rules.
>>3) Double sign-in of voters from another other WG for the
>> purpose of gaining initial membership in order to vote
>> at the initial meeting.
>>
>>Given the secret nature of the last election, there is no
>>ability to analyse the results to prove that there was
>>no attempt to dominate.
>>
>>Given my experience in dot17 with block voting behavior
>>I present the following steps to restore confidence in
>>the election process are as follows:
>>
>>
>>a) All members must declare what company is sponsoring their
>> attendance. As per ANSI rules, consultants shall declare who
>> their sponsor is, or declare if their sponsor is already
>> represented as a voter. Any consultants whose details are
>> found to be incorrect shall not have their vote counted.
>>
>>**GOT**
>>We should just fix this in the rules
>>In 802.3, one of the requirements for being a voter is that you maintain correct contact information. Your contact information goes invalid, you lose your right to vote until it is corrected (admittedly, this was mostly for letter ballots rather than in-meeting but it is the rule). We could expand that concept to include correct and current information regarding "sponsor or affiliation per ANSI requirements".
>>
>>That would make the requirement an up front portion of acquiring voting status and would pre-set expectations.
>>
>>That should minimize bickering over the long haul after the initial spike.
>>
>>We would have to formulate specific requirements that consultants would need to meet in fulfillment.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>b) The members who signed into multiple groups for the March'03
>> session should be subjected to the following checks and those that
>> do not show clear interest and attendance in dot20 should be
>> disallowed
>> i) What do they claim their interest was for that week.
>> (Jerry's suggestion)
>> ii) Where possible, verify if their claimed interest is what was
>> marked in their registration.
>> iii) Verify their attendance at subsequent dot20 meetings and
>> if possible determine if they continue to do double
>> sign-ins.
>>
>>c) The election shall be conducted as a role call vote and then
>> the results must be analyzed to prove existence of
>>domination.
>>
>>Howard Frazier had suggested that a sub-committee be formed
>>(with for example the treasurer & secretary) as members to
>>resolve the issue of valid voters (b).
>>
>>I further suggest, that a sub-committee be formed to
>>do the analysis of the election ballots.
>>
>>I encourage Jerry to come back with his plan for insuring an
>>election that withstands scrutiny and appeal.
>>
>>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