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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules

Title: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
I also vote disapprove, and agree with at least the majority of Pat's comments below.
 
I will try to provide my own comments after the January interims.
 

Carl R. Stevenson

President and Chief Technology Officer

WK3C Wireless LLC

Where wireless is a passion, as well as a profession SM

———————————————————————————————————

Wireless Standards, Regulatory & Design Consulting Services

4991 Shimerville Road

Emmaus, PA 18049-4955 USA

phone:  +1 610 965 8799

cellular: +1 610 841 6180

e-mail:  wk3c@wk3c.com

web: http://www.wk3c.com


From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 4:12 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules

Matt,
I'm voting disapprove.
 
The issues list at the front of this ballot is
  1. Are abstentions counted in the denominator when tallying votes
  2. Must the full WG membership be reflected in the denominator of electronic ballots
  3. Numerical vote tallies are required for all matters brought before the EC
  4. Level of approval required for procedural votes
  5. Directed Positions for Procedural Issues
  6. Rules for gaining, losing, and maintaining membership
1 is already clear in the existing text and there is no change to address it. 
 
-----------The following issue is the reason for my disapprove.
None of the changes address 2 and 2 doesn't accurately state the problem. The denominator to be used is clear for the pass percentage in the existing text. There is a problem in the existing text in that the entire text about the required Yea vs. Nay and participation percentages to pass appears to apply only to a Working Group Confirmation letter ballot. It appears in a paragraph about forwarding a draft or revised standard and it says "Working Group Confirmation letter ballot". No requirements are stated for "other matters" decided by a letter ballot. The original section only dealt with draft balloting and when we modified it to add other matters we did a poor job. The text about the options for a ballot containing three choices is only appropriate to draft ballots. A Do Not Approve on a motion sent to the working group by email shouldn't require comments since it wouldn't require comments during a meeting and an abstention shouldn't require a reason. I suggest we clean this up by first establishing short names for the two kinds of letter ballot: forwarding letter ballot and motion letter ballot. Then always use letter ballot, forwarding letter ballot, or motion letter ballot when stating a requirement so it is clear where it applies.
 
For a motion letter ballot, should it always require 75% to pass or should it be 50% for procedural like a meeting vote? - I could make arguments for either way but I lean toward 50% for procedural. What should be the participation requirement? Since an interim requires a 50% quorum as does a forwarding letter ballot, 50% is reasonable.
---------------------------
 
6 isn't addressed and while there have changes suggested in the past for our current rules, I'm not aware of any consensus on a change to them. If we do try such a change would be best handled as a separate ballot since it will probably be controversial.
 
I agree that Bob's wording is better for the change to 7.2.4.2.1.
 
There still seems to be a discrepancy between the description of handling procedural matters in the P&P and actual practice in the working groups.
7.2.4.1: The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues.
 
7.2.4.2.1 as modified: Procedural matters put by the Chair to the group may be decided by a majority vote.
 
But what happens in the Working Groups (at least in 802.3) is that people make motions that the chair classifies as procedural or technical and then we vote on them. The chair isn't putting the matter to the group; the mover is. Perhaps you could say that in letting the motion go to vote rather than deciding it, the chair is choosing to put it to the group. I would prefer that we make that clear in 7.2.4.1 by modifying it to:
The Chair of the Working Group may decide procedural issues or may put them to a vote of the Working Group.
 
9.3 The added sentence should be moved to the prior paragraph (which is the one that calls out the 75% requirement). The new sentence also seems somewhat contradictory since the prior text says 75% required to pass  per subclause 7.2.4.2.1 which only applies to technical. I suggest:
 
After a Working Group motion has been passed that establishes the Working Group’s position, a separate Directed Position motion is required to make that Working Group Position a Directed Position. Directed Positions may be formed by the Working Group on both technical and procedural matters but a Directed Position motion is always treated as a technical motion requiring 75% approval to pass per subclause 7.2.4.2.1.
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Friday, 07 January, 2005 9:02 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules

Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG Voting Rules. This ballot was approved at the Friday November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the meeting.  The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.

Ballot Duration:  1/8/2005 - 2/8/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST

WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your groups, and invite them to comment through you.

Thanks & Regards,

Mat

<<802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf>>

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.

Senior Member Technical Staff

BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR

Office: +1 973.633.6344

email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.