Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
G'day Dave,
On the issue of Rome vs Vancouver I have mixed feelings.
* On one hand, I would like to see more non North American meetings to
help demonstrate to other organisations, including many/most National
Bodies within ISO/IEC JTC1, that the IEEE 802 WG's are attempting to be
more internationally inclusive than they are currently perceived to be.
* On the other hand, I recognise that the proposed location in Rome has
many negative factors, such as cost and the remoteness of the site from
the centre of Rome.
However, that is not the topic of this e-mail. Rather, I feel compelled
to point out a misrepresentation of generally accepted governance
principles and the responsibilities of the 802 LMSC EC.
Your e-mail strongly suggests that WG Chairs must vote according to the
will of their WG, as determined by the survey in this case.
In fact, under the P&P the WG Chairs have two responsibilities:
* "act in the best interest of the LMSC as a whole"
* "represent their Working Group on the Executive Committee"
The P&P notes that "these responsibilities are in conflict with each
other".
In the normal case, the WG Chairs have the authority to make their own
judgements in resolving any conflict. On this issue, I suspect the WG
chairs took into account a whole range of factors in determining the
"best interest of the LMSC as a whole", including the survey and the
unattractiveness of the Rome location, but weighted the need to be
perceived to be "international" more highly.
There is a way under the P&P for a WG to remove the WG Chair's authority
to make a judgement in "best interest of the LMSC as a whole". This
requires the WG to approve a "directed position" with a 75% majority.
However, interestingly, if one considers the survey to be a vote on a
directed position, only the 802.1 and 802.20 WG Chairs would have been
"directed" to vote for Vancouver over Rome.
The membership of the WGs do not have to agree with their WG Chair's
decision, but they do have to respect the WG Chair's right to make
difficult decisions in the "best interest of the LMSC as a whole" when
not "directed", particularly as it was the WG who gave the Chair the
authority to make such difficult judgements by electing him/her as the
WG Chair.
If you do not think a WG Chair displays good judgement then support an
alternate candidate at the next election or stand yourself. However,
please do not make threatening comments related to fiduciary
responsibility and insurance that have no supporting factual basis.
Andrew
BTW I don't know how Stuart Kerry voted on this particular issue, but I
am sure he did so in a thoughtful and well considered manner that took
account of many conflicting factors. I would hope he does the same in
the motion to rescind the decsion to choose Rome that is likely to occur
in the EC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
Folks,
I find I rather agree with the sentiments Tony expresses below.
The EC asked, the membership answered, now the EC actions should reflect
the membership's stated desire.
The survey results were pretty clear. From the posted survey results:
Only one group (.17) voted to pick Rome over Vancouver - and that vote
as 4,1. .17 represents 5 people out of the total of 552 that
participated in answering that survey question.
Only one group (.19) tied - where the vote was 1,1 - that's another 2
people out of the 552 total.
ALL THE REST OF THE GROUPS VOTED FOR VANCOUVER OVER ROME.
As did the overall count of 362, 185 for a 66% vote in favor of
Vancouver - or pretty close to a 2:1 ratio.
I don't see how the data could be much more clear.
Learning from this email thread that one or more EC members argued that
the survey was flawed simply sounds to me like an excuse for those EC
members to argue for the result which they had already pre-decided they
wanted. It may have been "flawed"... (I have no objective way to measure
"flawed-ness").
In any case it is what it was. The EC crafted it and ran it. If it is
"Flawed" it is so because the EC made it so. Maybe the EC will get
"better"
at surveys in the future.
For now, all the available data clearly says Vancouver 2:1 over Rome.
I believe a good argument could be made that the EC members have a
fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and the members of the
organization have pretty clearly said what they prefer. Before the EC
does otherwise, EC members may want to consider that lack of Directors &
Officers insurance situation again. That's not a threat, rather an
attempt to get people to seriously consider the potential consequences
of their actions.
I also infer from this situation that there are EC members that had/have
little or no intention of representing their membership's desires. My
personal opinion is that if you argued against doing what your group
voted for, you should be seriously considering resigning. If you don't
resign, I hope your group rectifies the situation by remembering this
for you in March elections.
Note that I was not at the Friday Plenary, so I have no idea who the
prior statement may offend/anger - and it doesn't matter. I feel just as
strongly about elected officers representing their membership as those
that want Rome "as a symbol of nNA, no matter what" apparently feel
about the March 2009 venue issue.
I also realize that the way "it sounds to me" may not be the way the
person or persons making the argument intended it - and that does not
change how it appears - at least to this member.
The act of asking the membership what it wants to do, and then
attempting to find a way to ignore the response is, well, deplorable.
People do watch the EC actions. A primary purpose of this email is to
remind the EC that others do watch what goes on.
I've attached the survey results and cc'd this email to the WG I spend
the most time participating in (.11). Seems to me 802 needs more light
shone under this particular rock.
I'm hoping (but don't in fact know one way or the other) that the .11
chair argued for the position expressed by the .11 WG and the overall
802 membership.
Dave
____________
David Bagby
email: David.bagby@ieee.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:28 AM
To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
Carl -
I guess where we differ is in how we choose to go forward from here.
The EC chose to say "The survey was flawed, so we will ignore its
results and go to Rome anyway". I didn't agree with that position, and
voted accordingly. Unfortunately, my viewpoint didn't prevail.
To me, it was our responsibility to make sure the right questions were
asked in the survey. We failed to do that, for whatever reasons, despite
ample opportunity to do so. Shame on us all. However, having asked the
wrong question, I believe we were stuck with the answer we were given by
the 802 membership. To then ignore the survey results seems to me to be
arrogance in the extreme. The fact that the EC didn't like the answer
the survey gave isn't sufficient justification for going against it
IMHO. Just because it fits in with our desire to do NNA meetings doesn't
make it the right choice.
As it happens, and for the reasons pointed out by Pat, I think that
particular Rome venue is a lousy choice anyway, regardless of the price
issue, and particularly so when compared with Vancouver as an
alternative.
Regards,
Tony
At 13:47 21/11/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>I think you got my point ...
>
>If one can book prices in the >=~200/night range now, why in the heck
>are we being quoted $425-450 (since we pay separately for meeting space
>and F&B)???
>
>This major disconnect is why I believe that the "survey" was flawed (at
>best) and the results skewed to the point of being worthless.
----------
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.