Re: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
Pat,
As I've pointed out, the text in 7.1.3.3 specifically refers to "Votes at
Meetings" and specifically singles out approval of PARs and Drafts.
Other sections of the P&P point to approval of PARs being conducted at the
closing EC meeting at a plenary session.
As I've also pointed out, the text of 7.1.3.4 clearly limits EC electronic
ballots to decisions that *must* be made before the opening of the following
plenary. I don't think that this issue rises to that standard for reasons
that I've pointed out. (And, if we've inadvertently, but well-intentionedly
erred in approving things that don't rise to that standard in the past, it
should not be construed as an "excuse" for making the same mistake again or
routinely going forward.)
Happy Thansgiving to all - I suggest we suspend further debate on this until
the festivities have concluded (and the turkey and trimmings have settled).
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:09 PM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] RE: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m
> PAR to NesCom
>
> Matt,
>
> To which text are you specifically referring? The text in
> 7.1.3.3 doesn't state anything about what can be done in an
> email ballot. It is specifically addressing how votes at
> meetings are conducted. Please see my email for further explanation.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew
> J. (US SSA)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:07 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> The text of the P&P does seem to require 'in person' votes.
> I would suggest a teleconference should be considered as a
> valid alternative.
>
> Mat
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Senior Member Technical Staff
> BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:32 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> Steve,
>
> The text you quote supports no such action by the chair,
> certainly not supported by the argument you make. What is
> required by 7.1.3.3 is that there is a specific requirement
> for the number of votes to approve a PAR. There is no
> statement as to whether a motion to approve a PAR can be
> considered only at a closing EC meeting. If you see that
> text in this part of the P&P, please point it out.
>
> Since you copied Carl's email here, as well, I will also
> respond to that.
>
> Carl,
>
> I wonder what P&P you are reading. I can find no limitation
> such as you describe below, that requires that PARs "are
> considered by the EC *at plenary sessions* - PERIOD". In
> fact, the only reference to when a PAR can be considered is a
> restriction on when it can NOT be considered.
> The following sentence is from the fourth paragraph of clause
> 17.3 in clause 17, Procedure for PARs:
>
> "It will be assumed that insufficient coordination and/or
> inter Working Group consideration had occurred prior to the
> submission of the PAR if this deadline is not met, and the
> proposed PAR will not be considered by the Executive
> Committee at the closing Executive Committee meeting."
>
> The only requirement for consideration of a PAR by the EC is
> that it must have met the WG/TAG coordination requirements
> (as well as meeting the 30-day advance circulation requirement).
>
> So, while your statements below may be reason for you to vote
> against the motion at the EC, there is no support there for
> you, at either NesCom or the SB, to speak against the PAR as
> being approved in violation of any of our P&P. If you
> believe there is support for your position in the P&P, please
> quote the appropriate text for us.
>
>
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:12 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> IEEE 802 EC,
>
>
>
> I do not think the EC wants to add insult to
> injury. After all that went on at the end of the closing EC
> meeting I do not think the EC wants to attempt to sidestep
> the rule that PARs are approved at closing EC meetings, and
> not though an electronic ballot.
>
>
>
> For your reference, see Section 7.1.3.3 of the 802 P&P
>
>
> 7.1.3.3 Voting at Meetings
>
>
> Except where otherwise noted in this P&P, approval of an EC
> motion is achieved if a simple majority of EC members approve
> the motion (approve/(approve + disapprove)). The LMSC Chair
> only votes if his vote can change the outcome of a vote.
> Proxy voting is not permitted.
>
>
>
> The following actions have exceptional voting requirements:
>
>
>
> * Approval of PARs and Drafts for forwarding to IEEE-SA shall
> require approval by a majority of EC members present with
> voting rights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This motion is out of order. I call on the 802
> chair to rule the motion out of order.
>
>
>
> Somehow, this procedure discussion got started on
> a private email list. Since we are an open organization, I
> have copied the EC reflector so the discussion is held in public.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carl R Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@wk3c.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: 'Paul Nikolich'; 'Roger B. Marks'; 'Tony Jeffree'
> Cc: 'Vivek Gupta'; 'Stuart J. Kerry'; Shellhammer, Steve;
> 'Michael Lynch'; 'Sherman Matthew'; 'John Hawkins'; 'Geoff
> Thompson'; 'Everett O Rigsbee'; 'Carl Stevenson';
> bob.grow@ieee.org; 'Bob O'Hara'; 'Bob Heile'; 'Pat Thaler';
> 'Mike Takefman (tak)'; a.greenspan@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
> Importance: High
>
>
>
> Paul, et al,
>
>
>
> Before Paul rules on this matter, as he indicated in his
> e-mail response to
>
> Roger he would do by close of business today ...
>
>
>
> I believe that, to be fair to Paul, Roger, and the other
> members of the EC,
>
> you should know in advance that I object to any move to
> approve a PAR by
>
> electronic ballot outside of a plenary session.
>
>
>
> I also ask - actually insist - that any and all discussion -
> and certainly
>
> any motions - regarding this matter be conducted in an open
> and transparent
>
> manner on the EC reflector, rather than in the (figurative,
> but not intended
>
> disrespectfully to anyone) "smoke-filled room" of a private
> distribution
>
> list.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, if the PAR *is* "approved" in this manner (via
> an EC electronic
>
> ballot outside of a face to face EC meeting at a plenary
> session), I will
>
> speak against the approval of the PAR at NESCOM and the SASB
> on the grounds
>
> that 802 didn't follow its own P&P.
>
>
>
> My reason for this position is that the 802 P&P is CLEAR that PARs are
>
> considered by the EC *at plenary sessions* - PERIOD. That's
> why the 30 day
>
> presubmission, the Tue/Wed comment/reply deadlines, and other
>
> provisions/requirements exist. To approve some altered
> version now, after
>
> the close of the plenary session, by electronic ballot not
> only would be in
>
> violation of our P&P but would also deny the other WGs the
> opportunity to
>
> review and comment on whether any changes statisfy their
> concerns (there
>
> were concerns from several WGs and individuals and in the
> interest of due
>
> process they should not be ignored or side-stepped ).
>
>
>
> I am concerned that approving PARs via electronic ballot outside of a
>
> plenary session would set an undesirable precedent and put us
> on a slippery
>
> slope that would effectively circumvent the long-established
> PAR approval
>
> process, which I believe is designed to assure that PARs are
> dealt with in
>
> an open and transparent manner that affords all interested parties due
>
> process.
>
>
>
> I would also note several additional procedural issues with
> respect to this
>
> matter, since equal and consistent adherence to process is my main
> issue:
>
>
>
> 1) the PAR document submitted via the link below is (still)
> not the PAR that
>
> was approved by the WG - it has been altered, per a motion by Mr.
> Greenspan.
>
>
>
> 2) With respect to 1), I believe that Mr. Greenspan (with all due
> respect)
>
> did not as an appointee, per our P&P, become a voting member
> of the EC until
>
> the end of our closing EC meeting. Therefore, Mr.
> Greenspan's motion to
>
> ammend the PAR during the closing EC meeting should have been
> ruled out of
>
> order by the Chair. (someone else could have made such a
> motion, but didn't
>
> happen and is therefore water under the bridge)
>
>
>
> 3)also, while the document linked to below seems to contain
> at least most of
>
> the essential elements of the approved PAR form, it does not
> appear to be
>
> "on the approved PAR form" (Mr. Grow made this distinction
> with respect to
>
> the 802.22.2 PAR and, as a result, I resubmitted that PAR to
> the EC as a
>
> complete and accurate facimile (a .pdf capture from the
> IEEE-SA website) of
>
> the approved, current PAR form more than 30 days before its
> approval and my
>
> WG reaffirmed its approval of the PAR as represented to the EC on the
>
> approved, current PAR form at our WG opening plenary at the
> beginning of the
>
> 802 plenary session during which the EC approved the PAR)
>
>
>
> 4) Finally, (again) it's unclear to me why (and disturbing to
> me that) this
>
> discussion - including an attempt at an EC motion - is taking
> place on a
>
> private distribution list rather than in an open and
> transparent manner on
>
> the EC reflector (???)
>
>
>
> So, why am I making such a fuss? Because I object to the way
> in which the
>
> EC, or at least some portion of it, seems inclined to
> selectively apply our
>
> rules in the most restrictive possible manner in the name of
> "the integrity
>
> of the process" in some instances, but NOT to apply the rules
> equally in
>
> other instances (the particulars seem to me, from my
> observation, to depend
>
> upon which interests are involved), and I think that that has to stop.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 7:30 AM
>
> > To: Roger B. Marks; Tony Jeffree
>
> > Cc: Paul Nikolich; Vivek Gupta; Stuart J. Kerry; Steve
>
> > Shellhammer; Michael Lynch; Sherman Matthew; John Hawkins;
>
> > Geoff Thompson; Everett O Rigsbee; Carl Stevenson;
>
> > bob.grow@ieee.org; Bob O'Hara; Bob Heile; Pat Thaler; Mike
>
> > Takefman (tak); a.greenspan@ieee.org
>
> > Subject: forwarding the amended 802.16m PAR to NesCom
>
> >
>
> > Roger,
>
> >
>
> > I am in the process of reviewing the proper procedural way
>
> > forward and will make a ruling by the close of business today.
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > --Paul
>
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
>
> > To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>
> > Cc: "Paul Nikolich" <p.nikolich@ieee.org>; "Vivek Gupta"
>
> > <vivek.g.gupta@intel.com>; "Stuart J. Kerry"
>
> > <stuart@ok-brit.com>; "Steve Shellhammer"
>
> > <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>; "Michael Lynch"
>
> > <mjlynch@nortel.com>; "Sherman Matthew"
>
> > <matthew.sherman@baesystems.com>; "John Hawkins"
>
> > <jhawkins@nortel.com>; "Geoff Thompson"
>
> > <gthompso@nortel.com>; "Everett O Rigsbee"
>
> > <everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>; "Carl Stevenson"
>
> > <carl.stevenson@ieee.org>; <bob.grow@ieee.org>; "Bob O'Hara"
>
> > <bob.ohara@ieee.org>; "Bob Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>; "Pat Thaler"
>
> > <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>; "Mike Takefman (tak)"
>
> > <tak@cisco.com>; <a.greenspan@ieee.org>
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:17 AM
>
> > Subject: Re: close of the closing EC meeting
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Roger -
>
> > >
>
> > > Would be happy to second the motion, but do you really mean
>
> > 5 October?
>
> > > If so, it can wait till March surely... ;-)
>
> > >
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Tony
>
> > >
>
> > > At 07:30 22/11/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> > >>Paul,
>
> > >>
>
> > >>I have heard nothing further from you on this issue. Further delay
>
> > >>exacerbates the problem.
>
> > >>
>
> > >>I therefore request the following EC Electronic Ballot, to
>
> > open on 22
>
> > >>November and close on 29 November:
>
> > >>
>
> > >>"To forward the P802.16m PAR (IEEE 802.16-06/054r4), as
>
> > supported by
>
> > >>the the Five Criteria (IEEE 802.16-06/055r3), to NesCom, for
>
> > >>consideration at its meeting of 5 October if at all possible."
>
> > >>
>
> > >>The document IEEE 802.16-06/054r4:
>
> > >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_054r4.pdf
>
> > >>
>
> > >>represents the PAR as amended by the motion of Mr. Greenspan that
>
> > >>carried 14/1/1. The Five Criteria statement IEEE 802.16-06/055r3:
>
> > >> http://ieee802.org/16/docs/06/80216-06_055r3.pdf
>
> > >>
>
> > >>is the same document considered in the motions of 17 November.
>
> > >>
>
> > >>Roger
>
> > >>>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.