Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++



All,

I'm torn. On the one hand, I believe that we must be consistent, and 
therefore Mark must be declared conflicted. On the other hand, the 
bizarreness of a WG chair not being allowed to move, second, or vote on 
issues of importance to the working group only heightens my distaste for 
the existence of the UC-EC.

Also, on the one hand, I agree that knowing that Mark would be allowed 
to vote on .20 issues under some circumstances would make be feel better 
about voting him conflicted. On the other hand, I dislike combining two 
separate items into one vote.

As my previous attempts to end the UC-EC more quickly than currently 
planned have been met with decisive rejection, I guess I have no choice 
but to live with this objectionable entity for the time being. And, 
after consideration of the above conflicts, I guess I must support 
Paul's proposal for separate votes on conflictedness and on voting 
rights of conflicted members of the EC. Ergo, if Paul will allow, I 
offer to move the following:

Whereas, Mark Klerer could be considered by a reasonable person to have 
a personal interest in the outcome of votes on matters concerning IEEE 
P802.20, Mark Klerer shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC roster.

jl

On 4/21/2008 9:56 AM, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> Paul,  I have to disagree with the John Hawkins position because the
> decisions are not independent, at least not for me.  I would have a very
> hard time supporting or voting for any motion that renders a WG Chair
> incapable of representing the directives of his own WG.  Whereas, if it
> were already clear that voting to designate Mark as not Unconflicted
> would not disenfranchise his entire Working Group I would be willing to
> favor such a motion.  
>
> So I still contend that we must resolve what it means for Mark to be
> "not Unconflicted" before we can in good conscious vote on that matter.
>
>
> I strongly object to the notion that we just go ahead and vote, and then
> decide what it means later.  
>
> I think we could be seriously challenged on just such an action.
>
>
> 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 9:22 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> classification+++need mover and seconder+++
>
> 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.
>
>   

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.