Re: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the non-conflicted EC?
All:
Aside from the kind words regarding the status of 802.20 for which I am thankfull; I must point out that my limited experience in the EC has led me to the conclution that on matters of interest or concern to 802.20 the line up of pro and con on the matter is most predictable. This may be a coincidence and I would prefer to beleive that this is so because of the respect I have come to have in my collegues on the EC. I recognize that on some matters the UCEC is invoked but on others such as the EC clarifying their position in regard to inputs to the IMT people consistent divisions seem to reappear. I would respectfully request that doing away with the UCEC be delayed until aproval for 802.20 to move to sponsor ballot is concluded. The request may take place at the forthcomming plenary. After that the time might be right to aleviate this burden on the UCEC who I might add have been very responsive, helpfull and fair in matters involving 802.20.
Arnie
-------------- Original message from "Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)" <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>: --------------
> Steve,
>
> I understand what you are saying, and note that I picked my words very
> carefully. I am describing what I would do. Each individual needs to
> make their own decision. Again, I'm less concerned with the question of
> actual conflict, and more concerned with the 'appearance' of conflict.
> In my company, we are given strict guidance to avoid even the
> 'appearance' of conflict. So I tend to take a far more conservative
> approach than others might deem necessary.
>
> Mat
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:17 PM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the
> non-conflicted EC?
>
> Paul and Matt,
>
> On Paul's question I believe that it would be fine to eliminate
> the conflicted EC since things are running pretty smoothly in 802.20 at
> this point. Nice job Arnie.
>
> Matt brings up a different point, that those with interest in a
> technology, or a competing technology, should recuse themselves. I
> think that could lead to quite a mess given that I would assume that
> everyone on the EC has some interest in the technologies being developed
> in the various WGs. If we did not then what are we doing as part of the
> EC. So I don't think it is reasonable for people to recuse themselves
> from votes they might care about. And if some people recuse themselves
> and others don't, that could result in some strange decisions. It is up
> to the members of the EC to act in an ethical manner, which I believe is
> how the EC operates. Of course if Matt, or anyone else, wants to recuse
> themselves they have that right.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J.
> (US SSA)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:51 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the
> non-conflicted EC?
>
> Fellow members of the EC,
>
> My personal opinion is that we are past the crisis and should return to
> normal operations... But please note that people who feel they are
> conflicted can and should recuse themselves from any vote anyway.
>
> A more interesting issue for me is that 802.16 and 802.20 now clearly
> compete in the same market space. The whole reason why I have
> voluntarily placed myself in the 'conflicted' category is that I am an
> 802.16 member and my company builds 802.16 equipment. That's not to say
> that my reasoning is influenced by those facts. It's just that I chose
> to avoid the possibility of ill will and future challenges because
> someone could claim based on these surface facts that I am biased.
>
> So even if we return to business as usual, it is likely I will continue
> to recuse myself on the EC of most 802.20 matters. I might still asked
> to be recognized on from floor as an 802.16 member to speak on a topic.
> But I still want to avoid any appearance of conflict.
>
> Mat
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 8:00 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the
> non-conflicted EC?
>
> Pat,
> Your assumption is correct--I want all members of the EC to provide
> their
> input. I apologize for the late notice, but it just occured to me this
> week--so better late than never. We are at least getting the discussion
>
> going, regardless if we can take any action next week.
> Regards,
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Thaler"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the
> non-conflicted
> EC?
>
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > First off, I assume that those of us who are conflicted can state our
> > opinion on this because reflector discussion isn't restricted to EC
> > voters. However if it came down to a vote on action, it isn't clear to
> > me whether the conflicted EC could vote.
> >
> > I don't think we can reverse what the SASB said we needed to do so the
> > only action we could take would be to petition the SASB. Unless we
> have
> > some indication that they would be receptive to a petition, it doesn't
> > seem worth spending time on.
> >
> > I have a timing issue with discussing this further at this point. Your
> > email went out Wednesday afternoon before the plenary. I feel I would
> > need to consult with my legal counsel before weighing in on this
> > decision and my counsel might want some time to consider their
> response.
> > I expect I'm not the only recused EC member that feels that necessary.
> I
> > have a non-IEEE standards meeting Friday, travel time to it tomorrow
> and
> > a mountain of prep work to do for the meeting next week. I think more
> > notice is necessary before this is discussed.
> >
> > I know the non-conflicted EC partitioning is a pain and I agree with
> the
> > sentiments that John Lemon expressed on a personal level, however once
> > this was put in place, removing it isn't that simple.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:09 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the non-conflicted
> > EC?
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I want to get a sense of the EC regarding the non-conflicted EC
> > partitioning on 802.20 WG matters. Do you think it is reasonable for
> us
> > to consider abolishing the non-conflicted EC, now that the 802.20 WG
> has
> > moved to entity voting and seems to be operating in a fair, open and
> > unbiased manner (at least that is my opinion)?
> >
> > I am not sure if we have the authority to abolish the non-conflicted
> EC,
> > that may rest with SASB. But we can petition SASB to abolish it, if
> > that is the consensus of the EC. Something to think about....
> >
> > Please weigh in on this via the reflector. We can discuss it a bit at
> > the opening EC meeting during the non-conflicted EC status request
> > agenda item, but we don't have time to get in to a long discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.