[802SEC] Response regarding potential Impact of LMSC Rule Problems
Dear EC members,
As agreed during the opening EC meeting, attached is my response to a 802.11
WG member's relative to potential 802 P&P inconsistencies with the operation
of the 802.11 WG.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@att.net>
To: <stuart.kerry@philips.com>; <stuart@ok-brit.com>
Cc: "mat sherman" <matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>; "Ken Clements"
<Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com>; "Paul Nikolich" <P.Nikolich@ieee.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:58 PM
Subject: Response regarding potential Impact of LMSC Rule Problems
> Dear Stuart,
>
> Sorry for the delayed response to your questions, but I wanted to
> consult with our 'P&P specialist' (Matthew Sherman) before
> responding. I have copied Ken on this email since he orginated the
> concern.
> However, the
> emphasis in my responses is on how interpretation of the P&P might
> impact your running of the Working Group, particularly at the next
> session. In short I see no impact.
>
> While Ken has done an excellent job reviewing the P&P for consistency, I
> feel he is interpreting it too strictly in some regards. Ken raises many
> issues, and I will try and address the key ones here. The answers may
> not be what you or Ken want to here. But I note that a process exists
> to change the P&P, and if there are rules you (or members of your
> Working Group) feel should be different, they are welcome to engage that
> process to make changes.
>
> I particularly invite you to make clarifications since from reading
> Ken's e-mail it is clear that the intent of the P&P is not as
> transparent as I would like. Those of us who participate in the EC have
> been dealing with these issues for years, and it is possible that things
> are now obvious to us that are not so to new comers. A new set of eyes
> may not see things as we intended. So Ken might be in the best position
> to suggest specific clarifications to the LMSC P&P so the intent is
> clear. I will try and clarify our intent now.
>
> Here are some responses to the issues Ken raises:
>
> 1) Application of Roberts Rules. Ken correctly interprets that IEEE 802
> does NOT strictly operate under Roberts Rules of Order. This has always
> been the case. It has never been intended that Roberts rules be
> strictly followed within IEEE 802. Rather they are a guide. Some WG
> within IEEE 802 chose to more strictly follow Roberts rules. Others do
> not. It is a choice left up to the WG Chair and the Working Group. The
> key I believe is that the LMSC P&P does not prohibit the WG Chair from
> conducting business strictly according to Roberts Rules. If you wish to
> conduct business within 802.11 strictly according to Roberts (except
> where expressly in conflict with the LMSC P&P or SA governance) you may.
>
> 2) Types of votes. Ken states that there are only two types of voting
> allowed in IEEE802. I disagree. There are two types of voting defined,
> but for procedural matters the chair has full discretion. If the chair
> wishes to define new types of votes (say votes with a threshold of 50%
> instead of 75%) he decides procedural matters and how he will decide
> them. The Chair is within their rights to do so as long as they only
> applies those methods to procedural issues. This is a matter which has
> been discussed in the past and precedent for defining new types of votes
> on procedural matters has existed for many years. You should not feel
> uncomfortable doing so.
>
> 3) Elections. Ken notes that there are special votes called out in the
> P&P. He specifically states that it requires a 75% vote to elect a
> chair. I don't believe it states this anywhere in the LMSC P&P,
> although other votes involving elections do require that threshold. The
> key here is that an election is a procedural matter. A 75% vote is not
> required. Most chairs / WG chose to define specific election procedures
> to avoid questions concerning a Chair's discretion. None require a 75%
> vote to elect an individual that I am aware. Clear precedent exists for
> interpreting the LMSC rules such that a majority vote is sufficient to
> elect an individual and that the chair / WG may define specific voting
> procedures for elections etc. While the rules can be made clearer, I
> feel precedent is clear enough that the election processes used by
> 802.11 in the past are still valid for the upcoming elections.
>
> 4) Meaning of technical. Ken correctly states that the definitions of
> technical and procedural are not clearly spelled out in the LMSC P&P.
> He particularly cites that the meaning of 'technical' could be
> interpreted in more of a 'legal' context rather than meaning something
> 'technological'. I would argue that given the context of IEEE 802 as a
> technology organization, the usage of the term 'technical' in the
> subclause of the P&P in question clearly means something technological.
> I think the common usage of the word applies here, and that it is left
> up to the chair to interpret gradations in the meaning. It is not
> possible to fully interpret all possible meanings of a word. So trying
> to 'define' these words within the P&P would at some level fail. This
> is one reason why the ultimate interpretation is left to the chair /
> working group given the context of the specific issue being considered.
>
> 5) WG Letter Ballots. I agree with Ken that the wording here is broken.
> We have tried in the past to repair it, and for various reasons failed.
> (You can't change the rules without a ballot, and if the ballot fails
> even if the rules are broken they must remain broken). However, the
> wording has generally been interpreted as to allow letter ballots on
> issues not concerning a draft with rational constraints (you don't have
> to comment on a non-existent draft if you want to vote no to the
> social). So please continue holding letter ballots as you have in the
> past, and I will try and bring the rules formally into agreement with
> our practices. The discrepancy here is not so large that we cannot live
> with it for the time being.
>
> 6) Special votes. This is the most extreme situation I can think of for
> the voting issues Ken raises. Ken essentially asks, what if the working
> group asks for a directed position or new election, and the WG Chair
> refuses to allow the vote because he rules the issue a procedural matter
> and decides it by chair's discretion. To my knowledge, this has never
> happened. Chairs normally get elected because they are reasonable people
> who have a demonstrated ability to be impartial. However, even if such
> a thing did happen members of the Working Group have recourse. They can
> always bring the matter directly to the EC, and the LMSC P&P state that
> a Working Group Chair can be removed 'with cause'. I believe refusal to
> have a vote on a directed position or new elections could be taken as
> 'cause' for removal. While the process for 'special' procedural votes
> can be improved, I believe the existing process provides sufficient safe
> guards to ensure a Working Group is protected from a chair who abuses
> his powers.
>
>
> I hope these interpretations were helpful. Please do not hesitate to
> contact me if you have further questions.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:40 PM
> To: 'Paul Nikolich'
> Cc: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); 'Bob O'Hara (boohara)'; 'Al Petrick';
> hworstell@research.att.com; Ken-Clements@ieee.org
> Subject: URGENT SUBJECT: Coming Impact of LMSC Rule Problems
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I have a very urgent matter for you that concerns the LMSC P&P as
> revised
> January 4, 2006. Immediately when these P&Ps were published I asked my
> Vice
> Chair (Al Petrick) in charge of our 802.11 P&Ps to review our own versus
> the
> changes in the LMSC. Indeed I consulted you recently by telephone on the
> change process for our WG upcoming Denver session.
>
> Having started an analysis and change process to our WG P&Ps, which Al
> Petrick undertook to complete, an individual member came to me on a
> procedural issue with a recent WG internal LB. To cut to the chase, the
> issue we had internally palled into obscurity when that member started
> to
> individually assess the LMSC P&P. Further, knowing the member well he
> has
> had a lot of exposure to legal issues as well as P&Ps, and finally has
> been
> a long time member in good standing within the 802.11 WG. Indeed with
> his
> assistance our internal issue is now closed.
>
> As Chair I asked the member (Ken Clements) to provide his analysis so I
> could report his and my concerns to you as the upper authority
> responsible
> for the LMSC P&P, which is pasted below as well as attached. I AM INDEED
> NOW
> IN A QUANDARY as to the correct way to proceed within the current LMSC
> policy if the analysis is CORRECT from Ken Clements. MY REQUEST TO YOU
> DIRECTLY IS an immediate investigation by you as Chair along with other
> EC
> members if need be to clarify this highly potential problem. Please
> advice.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Stuart
>
>
> +++++++++++
>
> Subject: Problems with Our 802 LMSC and Working Group Rules
>
> To: Stuart J. Kerry, Chair IEEE 802.11 WG
>
> From: Ken Clements, member IEEE, IEEE 802.11 WG
>
> February 21, 2006
>
> Dear Chairman Kerry,
>
> As per your request I have finished a first analysis of the impact of
> the
> existing 802 LMSC P&P rules on the operation of the next Working Group
> Plenary in Denver, and have concluded that due to, apparently,
> unintended
> consequences of cumulated edits of the rules, it is not possible for the
> WG
> to conduct business as we have in the past. The biggest problem arises
> from
> the combined effect of subclauses 7.2.4.1 through 7.2.4.2.2, which taken
> together, put an end to the use of our normal parliamentary procedure.
> This
> starts with:
> 7.2.4.1 Chair's Function
> The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues. The Working
> Group
> members and the Chair decide technical issues by vote. The Working Group
> Chair decides what is procedural and what is technical.
>
> As can be seen, this subclause has the typical construction used in
> separation of powers in which two operating entities are enumerated,
> Chair
> of the Working Group and Working Group members, and two areas of
> authority/responsibility are enumerated, procedural issues and technical
> issues, and one entity is given the authority/responsibility in one
> area,
> and the other entity in the other area. The Chair is also recognized as
> part
> of the body in the technical area, and then is given the further
> authority/responsibility to decide what is in each area.
>
> Contrary to our common notion that our WG is chartered as a
> parliamentary
> body under Robert's Rules, we are, in fact, chartered as a group of
> industry
> experts working under a manager who has near total control of the
> process.
> Although part of rule 7.2.4 says, "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
> (latest edition) is the reference for parliamentary procedures", nowhere
> does it charge the WG to use parliamentary procedure at all.
>
> Furthermore, the rules fail to define the terms 'procedural' and
> 'technical'
> with regard to subclause 7.2.4.1. We all have an idea that there is
> something 'technological' about the standards we are writing, but
> technical
> could also be a legal technicality. Procedure is both what we are
> doing,
> and the parts of the standard that hold the technological references
> together. Rule 7.2.4.1 says these terms are simply used by the Chair to
> designate how an issue will be decided. There is no requirement that
> the
> Chair define them, or even use them the same way each time.
>
> Next we have the following:
> 7.2.4.2 Voting
> There are two types of votes in the Working Group. These are votes at
> meetings and votes by letter ballot.
> Here is enumerated exactly two kinds of votes; not one, or three, but
> exactly two. Each of these two are then exactly specified in the next
> two
> subclauses to this subclause. Although the Chair is charged to decide
> the
> process, neither the Chair nor the body can make a new kind of vote.
> Why
> does this matter? Here is why:
> 7.2.4.2.1 Voting at Meeting
> A vote is carried by a 75% approval of those members voting "Approve"
> and
> "Do Not Approve". No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction
> with
> the Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
> established
> well in advance. A quorum is required at other Working Group meetings.
> The
> Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. A quorum is at least one-half
> of
> the Working Group members.
> Thus, all votes at meetings must pass by 75%. With no provision to make
> a
> new kind of vote, even the Chair cannot call for a simple majority vote
> as
> in the bulk of procedural motions listed in Robert's. Elsewhere the P&P
> introduces some other special votes to reelect the Chair, remove the
> Chair
> and provide Directed Position as consistent with the 'in meeting vote'
> type.
> (note: It takes 75% to be elected Chair, but requires a one meeting
> prior
> notice, and then 75% to be reelected. Why does prior notice matter when
> the
> vote is just same?)
> Let us think ahead to the opening Plenary of the WG to come in Denver.
> The
> usual procedure, after all the boiler plate, is to move to ratify the
> agenda. How are you going to do this? Have someone make the motion and
> then declare it 'procedural' and then decide it? Or are you going to
> declare it 'technical' and see if we get 75%? You cannot call it
> procedural
> and then take a vote, because there is only one type of vote in meetings
> (technical %75). You could call it procedural and then take a 'straw
> poll'
> instead of a vote, and then use your authority based on the poll. That
> would work, but do you want to go through the whole meeting doing this
> charade?
> Then we come to the votes by letter ballot:
> 7.2.4.2.2 Voting by Letter Ballots
>
> The decision to submit a draft standard or a revised standard to the
> Sponsor
> Ballot Group must be ratified by a letter ballot. Other matters may also
> be
> decided by a letter ballot at the discretion of the Working Group Chair.
> The
> Working Group Chair may vote in letter ballots.
> The ballot shall contain three choices:
> l . Approve. (May attach non-binding comments.)
> l . Do Not Approve. (Must attach specific comments on what must be
> done to the draft to change the vote to "Approve".)
> l . Abstain. (Must include reasons for abstention.)
>
> To forward a draft standard or a revised standard to the Executive
> Committee
> for approval for Sponsor Ballot Group voting, a letter ballot (or
> confirmation letter ballot) must be done first within the Working Group.
> A
> 75 percent approval of the Working Group confirmation letter ballot is
> necessary with at least 50 percent of the members voting. The 75 percent
> figure is computed only from the "Approve" and "Do Not Approve" votes.
> Subsequent confirmation ballots to the Sponsor Ballot Group do not
> require
> Executive Committee approval.
> The Working Group Chair determines if and how negative votes in an
> otherwise
> affirmative letter ballot are to be resolved. Normally, the Working
> Group
> meets to resolve the negatives or assigns the task to a ballot
> resolution
> group.
>
> There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation
> process see subclause 5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and
> negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.
> The letter ballot shall be conducted by electronic means. The response
> time
> shall be at least thirty days. However, for recirculation ballots, and
> for
> letter ballots not related to the submission of draft standards, the
> response time shall be at least fifteen days.
> Submission of a draft standard or a revised standard to the Executive
> Committee must be accompanied by any outstanding negative votes and a
> statement of why these unresolved negative votes could not be resolved.
>
> This language is very tight. There is a provision for the Chair to send
> out
> "other matters" to letter ballot, and a release for those to run for a
> shorter time (if desired), however, no authorization for the WG body to
> send
> out letter ballots, and no release from the form with its requirements
> for
> comments on how to change the draft in case of "do not approve" votes.
> So,
> you could send out a letter ballot to set the location of the next
> social,
> but those who did not approve would have to tell how a nonexistent draft
> could be changed so they would go for the social. Clearly, the strict
> ballot form is intended for the end process vote to approve the draft
> standard, but the language above is so tight, it covers everything.
> Whereas
> all votes in meeting require 75%, you can send out letter ballots on
> "other
> matters" that do not.
>
> The sections on voting to recall the Chair and voting to establish a
> Directed Position have their own classic problem:
> 7.2.4.4 Removal of Working Group Chairs or Vice Chairs
>
> The procedures specified in subclause 7.2.2 (WG Officers) are to be
> followed
> under normal circumstances. If a Working Group or TAG feels it is being
> inappropriately led or significantly misrepresented by its Chair or a
> Vice
> Chair and is unable to resolve the issue internal to the Working Group
> or
> TAG, then it is the responsibility of that Working Group to make and
> pass
> (75% of voting members present required) a motion to that effect and so
> notify the 802 Executive Committee with the recommended action and all
> supporting rationale in written form. The process for removal of
> committee
> Chairs, Vice Chairs, and other officers is prescribed in the IEEE
> Computer
> Society, Standards Activities Board "SAB Policies and Procedures"
> subclause
> 4.8.3.1, Removal of Chairs and Vice Chairs, is included here with
> relative
> terminology (e.g., subsidiary committee) translated to LMSC terms (e.g.,
> Working Group).
> The LMSC Executive Committee may remove the Chair or a Vice Chair of a
> Working Group or TAG for cause.
> The Chair of the LMSC Executive Committee shall give the individual
> subject
> to removal a minimum of thirty (30) days written mail notice, with proof
> of
> delivery, of a meeting of the LMSC Executive Committee at which the
> removal
> is to be decided. The individual subject to removal shall have the
> opportunity to confront the evidence for removal, and to argue in his or
> her
> behalf.
> In the clear and documented case of gross misconduct, the Chair of the
> LMSC
> Executive Committee may suspend the Chair of a Working Group, with the
> concurrence of the IEEE Computer Society VP of Standards. A meeting or
> teleconference of the LMSC Executive Committee shall be convened as soon
> as
> practical, but in no case later than thirty (30) days, to review the
> suspension as provided for above.
>
> The classic problem is the wording: "then it is the responsibility of
> that
> Working Group to make and pass (75% of voting members present required)
> a
> motion to that effect." Here, the rules give the WG the responsibility,
> but
> not the authority. We do not have the authority to schedule or take the
> vote, the Chair does. This is what happens in so many countries when
> the
> administration postpones votes they think they will loose. The WG has
> no
> procedural way to make the Chair call a question of no confidence. If
> you
> read the section on Directed Positions, it has the same problem.
>
> In conclusion I must report that from my analysis the 802 LMSC P&P rules
> have made our traditional WG parliamentary operations not possible in
> the
> upcoming meeting. Although greater legal minds may find a way, I do not
> know how this can be avoided though any action below the level of the
> SEC,
> and it may even require the SEC to ask the IEEE SA for a temporary
> variance
> from the SEC's own rules to fix this in time.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Ken Clements
>
> +++++++++++
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Clements [mailto:Ken-Clements@ieee.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:02 PM
> To: Stuart J. Kerry
> Cc: apetrick@widefi.com; hworstell@research.att.com; Bob O'Hara
> (boohara)
> Subject: Coming Impact of Rule Problems
>
> Dear Stuart,
>
> Thank you for your call yesterday. Yes, it is a fine kettle of fish. I
> feel as though our WG is that cartoon character who has run off a cliff,
> but
> just keeps running until he/she/it looks down to see that there is no
> ground
> down there. We were going along fine, until we found that there are no
> rules down there to support the way we have been going.
>
> As we discussed, I agree that fewer rules about WG operation from the
> LMSC
> would be better. They should have rules that set up the start of the
> WG,
> and then describe the final goal post (the letter ballot up to LMSC) and
> then leave how we get there to Robert's and our own self-binding rules.
> That is the way it is for them (the SEC), and should be the way it is
> for
> the Working Groups, and by the same recursion, the Task Groups.
>
> Per your assignment, I have attached a letter to you that contains the
> results of my analysis. I hope this helps you get the SEC to fix this
> stuff, because I see no way we can do it on our own, and nothing but a
> WG
> process disaster in Denver if they do not.
>
> -Ken
>
> But noble souls, through dust and heat,
> Rise from disaster and defeat
> The stronger. -- Longfellow
>
> +++++++++
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ----
> From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:stuart@ok-brit.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:44 PM
> To: 'apetrick@widefi.com'
> Cc: 'hworstell@research.att.com'
> Subject: URGENT: RE: P&P Change Documents
> Importance: High
>
>
> Al,
>
> Further to my previous email attached below. Please confirm that you are
> going to conference call Harry and I to discuss the P&P two documents on
> Wednesday (tomorrow). It is a matter of high urgency, especially in
> regards
> to the emails that you are being copied on from, Ken Clements regarding
> the
> LMSC P&P.
>
> Please confirm our call.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Stuart
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ----
> From: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:23 PM
> To: 'apetrick@widefi.com'
> Cc: 'hworstell@research.att.com'
> Subject: P&P Change Documents
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Al,
>
> I hope that you are feeling well or are on the mend now.
>
> It is imperative that we review the LMSC P&P changes that effect our
> 802.11
> P&P in ONE complete document as I requested you to do. It is equally
> important that we also look at the SECOND document I asked you to do
> that
> shows ONLY the new changes to our 802.11 P&P.
>
> Time is of the essence now, from the date of my first request on
> January
> 18th, as the meeting is fast approaching for our March 2006 session,
> where
> as you know the rules state that we are to address this at the OPENING
> plenary meeting on Monday.
>
> Therefore, please could you provide this urgently so we can review BOTH
> documents in plenty of time before our March 2006 session with Harry and
> myself. I would suggest the review at the latest by Wednesday next week,
> especially as Harry and I leave for the Athens Wi-Fi meeting at the
> close of
> that week, and will fly directly to Denver from there.
>
> With this plan, it should avoid any problems with any issues if you can
> not
> fly as ordered by your doctor, or to that fact any of us.
>
> Speak to you soon.
>
> Stuart
>
>
> _______________________________
>
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
>
> c/o: Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
>
> +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone
> +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax
> +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell
> eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> Web: www.semiconductors.com
> _______________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Al Petrick [mailto:apetrick@widefi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:41 AM
> To: stuart.kerry@philips.com; hworstell@att.com
> Subject: 802.11 vs. LMSC rules
>
> Stuart/Harry
> Reading through the LMSC rule changes we should propose a new set of
> rule
> changes for 802.11 at the March meeting and get them voted in July.
>
> I'm summering the chance for your review.
>
> -Al
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> --------
>
> Al Petrick
>
> VP Marketing and Business Development
>
> Vice-Chairman IEEE 802.11WG
>
> 1333 Gateway Dr. Suite 1012
>
> Melbourne, FL 32901
>
> Phone: 321.725.1520 x204
>
> Mobile: 407.810.3759
>
> Fax: 321.725.1092
>
> www.widefi.com
>
>
>
> Available from IEEE Press!
>
> IEEE 802.11 Handbook "A Designers Companion"
>
> 2nd Edition by O'Hara and Petrick
>
> ISBN 0-7381-4449-5
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> ----
> From: Al Petrick [mailto:apetrick@widefi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:31 PM
> To: Worstell,Harry R (Harry); hworstell@att.com;
> stuart.kerry@philips.com
> Subject: RE: Summary of PP changes
>
>
> I'll look at it and compare this evening.
> Al
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hworstell@research.att.com [mailto:hworstell@research.att.com]
> Sent: Wed Jan 18 20:06:03 2006
> To: Al Petrick; hworstell@att.com; stuart.kerry@philips.com
> Subject: RE: Summary of PP changes
>
> Hi Al,
>
> Stuart needs you to urgently check our P&P against the latest
> 802 P&P which I have attached.
>
> Harry
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Al Petrick [mailto:apetrick@widefi.com]
> Sent: Wed 1/18/2006 12:18 PM
> To: hworstell@att.com; stuart.kerry@philips.com
> Subject: Summary of PP changes
>
>
>
> Harry/Stuart
>
>
>
> Attached is a file I've been maintaining of "suggested" PP changes.
>
>
>
> -Al
>
>
>
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
LMSCRuleProblems.doc