Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22 January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++
A slight wrinkle/technicality arises in that not all "members of the EC"
are WG chairs, so there is no means of reciprocity in all cases. So this
motion may need to be re-worded somewhat to be directed at 802 WG
chairs, not "members of the EC." I would appreciate being afforded
membership/voting status in the WGs, but alas I cannot return the favor
(ok, maybe a few extra cookies for WG chairs? :-).
john
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:01 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22
January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++
EC Members,
Mike and I discussed this a while back. I believe Mike has no
intention of creating a "new class of voting voters." I agree 100% that
we do not want to do that. Current the text states "That all voting
members of the 802 EC shall have voting rights in all IEEE 802 WGs and
TAGs." If that implies a new class of voting members we could consider
new text that states "That all voting members of the 802 EC shall be
members of all IEEE 802 WGs and TAGs." Roger, does this address you
concern about "a new class of voting members?"
My personal opinion is that I am okay with conditioning it on a
mutual agreement between the WG/TAG chairs. I believe if there is a
legitimate reason to exchange voting rights then the WG/TAG chairs would
agree to exchange voting rights. And if there is no reason to exchange
voting rights it limits the additional members who are likely not to
attend.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:03 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22
January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++
Roger,
The "802.18 Motion to SEC" is what was on the original proposal in
November.
One reason for the rule change is to provide a basis for allowing the
voting. Some participants within the various WGs/TGs may view granting
of voting rights to a chair or EC member as being irregular.
I expect to be offline until sometime Saturday afternoon London time.
Regards from DFW,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901 Mobile
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:55
To: Lynch, Michael (RICH1:2H50)
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22
January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++
Mike,
I vote Disapprove, because:
(a) The motion is inappropriate according to the P&P. We don't have the
right to pass a motion that would specify that material "be included in
the next revision of the LMSC P&P". That's not the procedure for
changing the P&P.
(b) We can't by simple motion temporarily override the P&P, which is
what the motion is trying to do.
(c) Although you tried to avoid creating "a new class of voters", this
language would do so. The P&P do not specify a class of people with WG
voting rights; they specify the class of people who are WG members.
Voting is one right held by those members. This language would create an
additional class.
I generally like the idea you are proposing, but I remain concerned that
it would seriously impact quorum requirements in the smaller groups. I
would prefer a rule that would offer such reciprocal membership not
automatically but only upon request. I would support the initiation of
P&P change ballot along these lines.
P.S. I don't understand the labeling of the slide. In what sense is this
an "802.18 Motion to SEC"?
Roger
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Michael Lynch wrote:
> Dear EC members,
>
> During the November Plenary meeting I presented to the EC a motion on
> reciprocal voting rights. There was discussion of the motion and some
> edits were suggested. It was decided that there should be further work
> on the motion. That motion, now modified, is being submitted here for
> EC ballot.
>
> During the revision to the original motion it was considered that
> those with reciprocal voting rights would not be considered in
> determining quorums. After discussion that was dropped since it seemed
> to create a new class of voters.
>
> Next week's Joint Interim meeting will provide an opportunity for some
> of the EC to have face-to-face discussions of this motion and of
> course we can discuss it here. Next Tuesday evening will be the RR-TAG
> hosted meeting to determine if IEEE 802 will submit an input to ITU-R
> WP8F on IMT requirements. It is possible that IMT requirements may be
> the first of several IEEE 802 inputs to WP8F. If the work method
> involves developing the response(s) within individual TGs and bringing
> those results to the RR-TAG then having reciprocal voting rights
> should prove useful to that work.
>
> Motion: Moved by Mike Lynch, seconded by Steve Shellhammer
>
> The text of the motion is attached.
>
> Informative: This document informs ITU-R WP8F of a new project being
> started in IEEE.
>
> This ballot opens at midnight CT Friday 12 January and closes at 11:59
> p.m. CT Monday 22 January 2007.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> +1 972 814 4901 Mobile
>
> <<18-06-0077-r4-0000_RR-TAG_Reciprocal_Voting_Nov06.ppt>>
>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
> This list is maintained by Listserv.
> <18-06-0077-r4-0000_RR-TAG_Reciprocal_Voting_Nov06.ppt>
----------
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.