Re: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
Dear Mr. Nikolich and the other Members of the UC-EC,
I understand that the "Unconflicted Executive Committee" (UC-EC) is
preparing to move the 802.20 draft to RevCom with ballot results that
would fail to meet the minimum approval ratio without the
introduction of "invalidation" of the votes of three or four blocs
(depending on which backup materials are considered part of the
motion; I can't tell). I would caution the UC-EC that this is a grave
and highly unusual step that should not be undertaken without careful
consideration. I think that any ballot group member whose vote is
invalidated has a right to assume that each and every UC-EC member
supporting that invalidation is prepared to justify such a decision
based on the facts of the matter and the procedural requirements.
I have not reviewed all of the intended invalidations, but I would
like to ask the UC-EC members supporting this motion to consider, for
example, its decision to invalidate the expressed Disapprove vote of
the "Siemens/Nokia-Siemens-Networks" voting bloc.
As identified in Recirc #2 Comment #20, Max Riegel, who was assigned
to this voting bloc, voted Disapprove in Recirc #1 and submitted a
comment in the original ballot. Treating the Siemens/NSN bloc vote as
Disapprove, in accordance with the vote cast by Mr. Riegel, would
have caused the Recirc #1 approval ratio to fall below the minimum
approval level.
In Recirc #2, Mr. Riegel submitted additional comments. The UC-EC is
proposing to invalidate these comments and then, furthermore,
invalidate the Siemens/NSN vote as well. As its basis for
invalidation of the vote, the UC-EC proposes to invoke SASB
Operations Manual Subclause 5.4.3.2, which says 'During a
recirculation ballot, balloting group members shall have an
opportunity to change their previously cast ballots. If a change to
"do not approve" is based solely on comments concerning previously
approved portions of the balloted document, the balloter shall be
informed that the comments are not based on the changed portion of
the balloted document... If the balloter does not change the negative
ballot, the ballot may be submitted to RevCom as an unresolved
negative without comment."
So, is the invocation of 5.4.3.2 justified? This depends on many
factors, but I'd like to focus on one requirement: that the vote
under discussion is a 'change to "do not approve'. Was Mr. Riegel's
vote in Recirc #2 a change to Disapprove? The plain facts show that
it was not. The evidence shows that Mr. Riegel voted Disapprove in
Recirc #1. Therefore, his vote in Recirc #2 was not a change to
Disapprove. For a straightforward mechanical illustration, those of
you familiar with myBallot will be well aware that, when Mr. Riegel
opened his Recirc #2 ballot, the select box indicating his vote would
already read "Disapprove". Any "change" to his vote would have
resulted in a vote other than "Disapprove".
Looking into the intent of the EC, I'll postulate on its possible
explanation: that Mr. Riegel's vote in Recirc #1 was in fact
invalidated and was not accepted by the UC-EC as a valid Disapprove.
However, how could this have been done procedurally? I am aware of
one method: the invocation of Subclause 5.4.3.2. But Subclause
5.4.3.2 states plainly that, in that case, "the balloter shall be
informed." So, I'd like to ask the EC: was Mr. Riegel informed? I
would venture to say that he was not. I say that for the following
two reasons:
(1) I asked Mr. Riegel myself:
> From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:46 PM
> Subject: 802.20 ballot
>
> Hi, Max.
>
> I have a question for you regarding the 802.20 Sponsor Ballot.
>
> Has the 802.20 Chair (or someone else from the WG) ever told you
> that your vote was considered invalid?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
>
> From: maximilian.riegel@nsn.com
> Subject: RE: 802.20 ballot
> Date: May 13, 2008 03:03:12 PM PDT
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I did not got any feedback on how my vote was treated.
>
> Bye
> Max
(2) The information on how Mr. Riegel's Recirc #1 was treated was
apparently held closely. For example, the ballot group was never
provided with this information (and, to this day, has still not been
informed). The ballot cover letter explicitly states the following:
"Number of bloc voters voting disapprove without comments = 0". The
ballot group was told, in unambiguous terms, that no votes were ruled
"Disapprove without Comments".
So, given these facts, I suggest that Mr. Riegel was not informed
that his Disapprove vote had been invalidated.
Now, I ask the UC-EC members to consider the following: given that it
invoked 5.4.3.2 without following the specific procedure required in
5.4.3.2, on what basis can the UC-EC assert that Mr. Riegel has ANY
obligation regarding supporting comments in Recirc #2? Indeed, Mr.
Riegel DID submit a Disapprove vote in Recirc #1, and he was never
informed that his vote was considered any differently than he had
submitted it. TO HIS KNOWLEDGE, HE WAS A DISAPPROVE VOTER. As a
Disapprove voter, he had no reason to assume that he had ANY
obligation to provide comments. It appears that the UC-EC is now
retroactively proposing to impose conditions on Mr. Riegel's Recirc
#2 response without ever informing him of this requirement.
Given these facts, I can't see any legitimate basis for the UC-EC
members to invalidate Mr. Riegel's Recirc #2 Disapprove vote and
thereby disenfranchise one of the voting blocs. It also seems to me
that UC-EC ought to also go back and carefully review the legitimacy
of its earlier decision to invalidate that voting bloc's Recirc #1
ballot.
Given the extraordinary nature of the UC-EC's approach, I recommend
that each UC-EC member supporting it be well prepared to articulate
the detailed historical and procedural arguments required to justify
each of the three of four radical judgments resulting in the
disenfranchisement of a voting bloc. The voters are owed no less.
Regards,
Roger B. Marks
On May 20, 2008, at 07:50 PM, Klerer, Mark wrote:
> UC-EC Members
>
> I have had a request to redistribute the previous (Recirculation 1)
> ballot vote mapping for your reference.
>
> I am also including a draft of the cover that will go to Revcom to
> explain the ballot results. It is basically a rearrangement of the
> EC-UC cover note and includes the tally for all ballot cycles.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Klerer
> Chair - IEEE 802.20
> Phone: 908-443-8092
> e-mail: klerer@qualcomm.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:29 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
>
> 802 EC
>
> Paul Nikolich has delegated the running the following ballot to me.
>
> Motion: UC-EC approves forwarding 802.20 draft 4.1 to RevComm
>
> Mover: James Gilb
> Second: Bob Heile
>
> Start of ballot May 7, 2008
> End of ballot May 17, 2008 AOE (anywhere on earth)
>
> The resolution document are attached for you reference.
>
> James Gilb
> 802 Recording Secretary
>
> ----------
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.