Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22 January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++
Tony,
While chairs can do this some have had the problem of how to justify to
their membership granting the voting rights. The view has been that it
may appear to be a case of favoritism. This would allow those chairs who
have had, or may have, difficulty in granting voting rights a basis for
doing so.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 02:48
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+++
I have the same problem with this as expressed by Roger - the motion
attempts to make a rules change but via the wrong mechanisms, and
therefore I have to vote "No".
However, I agree with the sentiments expressed that it is desirable to
provide a means whereby voting members in one group can participate in
another should they desire to do so. We can already do this within
existing P&P as the Chair has the ability to grant membership, so as far
as I can tell, we're already there - there's nothing more to be done
other than for the Chairs of groups where reciprocal voting is going to
be appropriate to agree amongst themselves how it will work for their
groups and/or for particular projects.
Over the past few days Bob Grow and I have been conducting exactly that
sort of negotiation regarding a piece of work that is relevant to both
802.1 and 802.3. So I am failing to see the problem here.
Regards,
Tony
At 22:30 12/01/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Mike,
>
> So that would involve changing the wording in the motion
>
>From
>"That all voting members of the 802 EC shall have voting rights in all
>IEEE 802 WGs and TAGs"
>
>To
>"Any voting member of the 802 EC shall be granted membership upon
>request to the WG/TAG chair, in any IEEE 802 WG/TAG"
>
>
> Does that wording work better for you and other members of the
>EC? If the wording makes it more acceptable to the EC members, I would
>be willing to make a motion to amend. Once I hear if the wording works
>better for those who have concerns, I can then make such a motion.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Takefman (tak) [mailto:tak@cisco.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 2:11 PM
>To: Shellhammer, Steve; 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+++
>
>Steve,
>
>I don't want to screw up your quorum requirements at interims or for
>any ballots given the likelyhood of my having anything useful to say on
>your work approaches zero. One might argue that is the case in general,
>but that is a different issue :-)
>
>If the wording is that all EC members may become a member of any WG/TAG
>upon request (feel free to wordsmith) I'd be more comfortable, since
>then I can just join whatever groups I feel qualified to vote in by
>asking the chair for membership.
>
>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
>
> > -----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.
----------
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.