Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++
Hi Paul,
Just to clarify - the motion from the IEEE 802 EC presented to the SASB [ http://standards.ieee.org/board/stdsbd/1207sasbagenda_4-2.ppt#8 ] in December 2007 only asked that the UCEC be dissolved once the IEEE 802.20 standard is approved.
As far as I can recall there was some discussion at the SASB meeting that this request was rather early as SASB approval was some time off - IEEE P802.20 sponsor ballot was only just starting - and that this action can be taken nearer the end of the process.
As far as the minutes from the December 2007 SASB meeting are concerned I don't see any record of a vote on this particular request - so I don't think it was denied as such - it just didn't come to a vote.
Best regards,
David
***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> wrote on 21/04/2008 17:22:26:
> Tony,
> We are in deep weeds for sure and I personally agree with your first
> recommendation. Unfortunately, the LMSC EC's request to SASB to dissolve the
> UC-EC in Nov2007 was denied. As I recall, the SASB response to our request
> was the UC-EC must stay in place until the 802.20 sponsor ballot is
> complete.
> As for how to handle the conflict/unconflicted-ness, I agree with John H.,
> the classification and rights issues are independent. I'd like to make
> progress on the classsification, since that is less ambigous. Then lets
> tackle the rights issue.
> --Paul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> classification+++need mover and seconder+++
>
> > Paul -
> >
> > On reflection, I believe we are in deep weeds here with regard to
> > procedure.
> >
> > We (802) have no procedures in our P&P that define how an unconflicted EC
> > works; all we have with regard to the UC-EC is a set of requirements
> > imposed on us by the standards board. When they invented the UC-EC, I
> > don't think that the SB anticipated the current situation at all - it was
> > set up when Arnie was still Chair, so the question didn't arise. And as
> > Bob O'Hara was frequently called upon to point out to us, we can't change
> > our P&P simply by passing a motion. So, I believe that the only way to fix
> > this is through the SB doing one of two things:
> >
> > - Dissolving the UC-EC; or
> > - Making a ruling as to what rights an otherwise conflicted Chair of
> > 802.20 might have when representing the wishes of his working group.
> >
> > Or possibly by the EC Chair simply stating how he will interpret the rules
> > with regard to what a not-unconflicted Chair may do.
> >
> > I would personally advocate the first of these three solutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > At 16:07 21/04/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> >>Buzz,
> >>
> >>I disagree--we must be consistent in determining the classification. The
> >>determination of conflicted vs unconflicted must be made using the
> >>criteria I established in my 3APR email (see extract below). This is
> >>consistent with how we have treated every EC member regarding their
> >>classification.
> >>
> >>Once we make the above decision, then we can take the second step.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Nikolich
> >>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:36 PM
> >>Subject: determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of new EC
> >>members
> >>
> >>
> >>All,
> >>
> >>The criteria we shall use in classifying the new EC members as
> >>Unconflicted or Conflicted regarding 802.20 decisions:
> >>a) The "perception of conflict" is a test for disclosure: is the EC
> >>member aware of a fact (about himself or someone else) that would cause a
> >>reasonable person on the outside looking in to believe that the member had
> >>an interest in the outcome or for whatever reason was unable to decide in
> >>the best interest of the IEEE.
> >>b) The test for a determination of an "actual conflict" was whether there
> >>was in fact an interest that could prevent someone from making an unbiased
> >>decision.
> >>
> >>[...rest of email deleted...]
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rigsbee, Everett O"
> >><everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>
> >>To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>;
> >><STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:46 AM
> >>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Paul, I think you have the right plan in the wrong order. I personally
> >>would be a lot more comfortable judging Mark (and other EC members) to
> >>be not Unconflicted if I was confident that they would be able to move
> >>and vote for WG directed positions. So I think we need to clarify what
> >>it means to be "not Unconflicted" before we vote on his status. Doesn't
> >>that make sense ??? :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanx, Buzz
> >>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> >>Boeing IT
> >>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >>Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> >>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> >>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:37 AM
> >>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>Dear UC-EC members,
> >>
> >>I think we must follow a two step process.
> >>- First, let's make the determination whether Mark Klerer is
> >>unconflicted or
> >>conflicted.
> >>- Second, we'll decide on how to handle his rights as either an
> >>unconflicte
> >>or conflicted EC member.
> >>
> >>To take the first step, I would recommend the following UC-EC motion be
> >>made
> >>by an UC-EC member:
> >>
> >>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC roster.
> >>
> >>Do I have a mover and seconder?
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>--Paul
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> >>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:23 AM
> >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>
> >>
> >>>I would second such a motion.
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Tony
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At 19:59 20/04/2008, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> >>>>Paul, I much prefer the solution proposed by Roger Marks, that any
> >>>>conflicted EC-members be entitled to propose and vote in favor of
> >>>>motions submitted to them as directed positions from their Working
> >>>>Group. It just seems fairer and more even-handed. And I have offered
> >>>>to make a motion to that effect.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanx, Buzz
> >>>>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >>>>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> >>>>Boeing IT
> >>>>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >>>>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >>>>Ph: (425) 373-8960 Fx: (425) 865-7960
> >>>>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> >>>>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> >>>>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:46 AM
> >>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> >>>>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> >>>>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >>>>
> >>>>Dear Unconflicted EC members,
> >>>>
> >>>>There has been discussion over the past wek regarding the
> >>>>conflicted/un-conflicted classification of Mark Klerer, specifically
> >>>>that if
> >>>>he is not made a member of the UC-EC perhaps he should be given unique
> >>>>status regarding placing 802.20 WG motions before the UC-EC. I don't
> >>>>believe special status is needed to ensure fair and proper
> >>consideration
> >>>>of
> >>>>802.20 WG business by the UC-EC. A special status will only serve to
> >>>>complicate the unconflicted EC and conflicted EC classification
> >>process.
> >>>>If
> >>>>Mark is classified as conflicted, he will have the right to propose
> >>that
> >>>>an
> >>>>UC-EC member place a motion on the floor on his behalf, participate in
> >>>>crafting the motion language and voicing an opinion on changes to it.
> >>>>
> >>>>To that end, I'd like to propose the following motion:
> >>>>
> >>>>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC roster
> >>and
> >>>>shall have the right to propose that an UC-EC member place a UC-EC
> >>>>motion on
> >>>>the floor on his behalf, participate in crafting the motion language
> >>and
> >>>>
> >>>>voicing an opinion on changes to it.
> >>>>
> >>>>I need a mover and and seconder for the above motion. Only UC-EC
> >>>>members
> >>>>may participate in the vote.
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>--Paul Nikolich
> >>>>
> >>>>----------
> >>>>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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.