Re: [802SEC] straw poll--is it time to abolish the non-conflicted EC?
Mat-
I take exception to your position. I believe that it is unnecessary and
perhaps even improper.
I am of the opinion that:
- When we vote at the EC we are supposed to be voting for the best
interests of 802 rather than any one WG
- There are enough people (with a wide range of affiliations) on
the EC to blunt conflicted votes
(There have been instances in the past of affiliation
over-weighting with bad results but I don't think so now)
- The approval threshold is low enough to mitigate conflicted votes
Therefore a blanket judgement of "conflicted" is just punting on you job as
a member of the EC
If there are specific issues that you feel conflicted on, then sure go
ahead and recuse yourself. I don't think you should bail on .20 matters any
more than I believe that when I was Vice Chair I should have not voted on
any Token Ring issues.
Geoff
At 05:51 PM 11/7/2007 , Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>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" <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>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.