Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++
Bob,
Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping that the SASB would have the
responsibility of finding the solution. Oh well....
It does seem that disenfranchising the chair of 802.20 entirely in this
matter is going to make it very difficult to have the .20 WG buy into
any decisions made by the UC-EC. It seems to me that we need to find a
method that will bring the members of 802.20 into the process, not push
them further from it.
-Bob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:54 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+++
>
> Bob:
>
> I'll hazard offering my recollection on the subject (likely
compromised
> by the passage of time).
>
> The SASB excluded its (perceived) conflicted members for discussion
and
> action on 802.20 prior to the establishment of an unconflicted EC. My
> recollection is that this first occurred in March 2006, though it
could
> have been in June 2006. In September 2006, the SASB heard
> presentations
> on the activities and status of 802.20 with its report issued on 19
Sep
> 2006, which included suspension of the WG pending its reorganization.
>
> I recall only verbal instructions on the process to determine
> conflicted/unconflicted. Questions were asked by IEEE counsel related
> to personal and employer/affiliation interest in 802.20/802.16
> activities (participation of another individual from your affiliation
> being defined as a perceived conflict). Those with a perceived
> conflict
> were excluded from further discussion and action. The remaining
> members
> then discussed and voted on each individual in executive session.
>
> The clearly unconflicted members of the SASB made the decision on
which
> of the potentially conflicted members would be accepted as
> unconflicted.
> Though we use the term conflicted, I do not believe any determination
> was made that the individual was actually conflicted, rather that the
> perception of conflict was significant enough for the individual to be
> excluded. I believe the same applies to the EC.
>
> The creation of the unconflicted EC process was similar. As I recall
I
> was the only EC member who's EC status was determined by the SASB
> (having been determined as a conflicted SASB member, I was told I was
> automatically a conflicted EC member). I don't know though if the EC
> voted on my status specific to that assertion. I believe all others
> classified as conflicted were by decision of fellow EC members.
>
> The unconflicted SASB voted in March 2007 on which new members would
be
> unconflicted on 802.20. I believe Paul is properly following the
> precedent of initial classification of members as well as the SASB
> process for new members.
>
> --Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:59 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+++
>
> Paul,
>
> Not that I have any official voice in this discussion, but could you
> recap for us exactly how the original members of the UC-EC were
> identified and by whom they were identified? I don't recall a motion
> and discussion of this nature taking place on the determination of the
> original makeup of the UC-EC. Of course, it could just be the
Percocet
> interfering with my memory this morning. But, wasn't the original
> determination made by the SASB, not the EC? Shouldn't they be
> responsible for making the same determination with respect to Mark's
> position?
>
> -Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-
> > SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.