Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
John,
If I said that, I was wrong, since SASB returned control of the 802.20
oversight to the EC in Dec07 as per Grow's point 5 below.
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Lemon" <jlemon@ieee.org>
To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
> Paul,
>
> I was told by someone, I thought it was you, that we were not allowed to
> dissolve ourselves, but had to request the SASB to dissolve us. In other
> words, we don't have the authority to cease our existence. Is this
> correct? If so, shouldn't the motion be to the SASB to ask them to end our
> existence and to end all the special rules for 802.20?
>
> If my memory is faulty, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I'd
> be quite happy to end the UC-EC ASAP. But I want to make sure that we're
> allowed to do what is being proposed.
>
> jl
>
> On 6/20/2008 1:30 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>> James,
>>
>> I'm not sure exactly what yoiu should change in your motion to take
>> Grow's comments into account, but I do think they are valid. The WG
>> should provide input to their chair, who can argue on their behalf. I
>> think that should be sufficient. Or WG members comments can be solicited
>> during the decision period.
>>
>> The decision is limited to the UC-EC, but any EC member can participate
>> in the discussion.
>>
>> Tony--as Grow points out, the UC-EC still exists. The UC-EC will have to
>> explicitly decide to dissolve itself, but first we need to resolve the
>> question regarding the operation of the WG.
>>
>> James--please re-craft the motion and solicit a second. I'd like to have
>> this decided well before the start of the plenary session.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
>> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
>>
>>
>>> James:
>>>
>>> 1. The rationale around the motion is misleading. This motion is
>>> primarily possible because the SASB returned oversight responsibility to
>>> the UC-EC in December 2007, where the guidelines for tallying the
>>> P802.20 ballot were given in a separate motion. Prior to that action,
>>> many actions also required approval of the SASB Oversight Committee.
>>>
>>> Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
>>> Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
>>> Committee with an offer of continuing support for situations where the
>>> 802 EC wishes to seek our help."
>>>
>>> The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from November 2006
>>> requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is
>>> approved by the SASB."
>>>
>>> 2. Under its oversight responsibility, I personally believe the motion
>>> is possible (but remember I'm conflicted on 802.20). Would it be better
>>> to have the 802.20 WG involved in such a decision? Mark could certainly
>>> inform the EC if there is already a position from the 802.20 WG on the
>>> action you raise. I did get limited input from 802.20 participants at
>>> the June SASB series indicating a desire to keep the same voting method.
>>> (If it ain't broke don't fix it.) I have no personal knowledge if there
>>> is a consensus position from the WG, even though I've been told that
>>> voting statistics don't show any significant difference now between
>>> entity bloc tallies and individual tallies of votes, the WG might wish
>>> to discuss this rather than have one more thing dictated to them. Were
>>> I still on the EC, I would want to know the will of the WG.
>>>
>>> 3. Also, determining membership status only by the LMSC P&P, leaves out
>>> additional requirements in the 802.20 P&P as well as requirements in
>>> IEEE-SA documents that would also apply being superior to the LMSC P&P
>>> (e.g., declaration of affiliation requirements to gain attendance credit
>>> not in the LMSC P&P). "voting rights shall be determined on historical
>>> attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and superior rules."
>>>
>>> 4. Voting such a motion by the UC-EC would certainly be the
>>> conservative approach, but I believe it is presumptuous to usurp the
>>> LMSC Chair's responsibility for such rulings.
>>>
>>> 5. Tony, per the above quotes, a request to the SASB was made, but no
>>> specific decision was made on the EC request on which I assume you are
>>> basing your statement that there is no UC-EC. If no one's status has
>>> changed since March, the 802.20 specific UC-EC continues to exist, it is
>>> only change in membership or member status on conflicts that invalidates
>>> the determination of perceived conflict. So, I believe the UC-EC
>>> continues to exist independent of any requirement or wisdom in voting
>>> matters by UC-EC members.
>>>
>>> --Bob
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:26 PM
>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
>>> rights
>>>
>>> I was under the impression that the UC-EC turned into a pumpkin once
>>> the 802.20 standard was approved, in which case, it isn't able to
>>> make further decisions. So this should be a motion of the (regular) EC.
>>>
>>> Or am I wrong?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> At 03:25 19/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
>>>> All
>>>>
>>>> I propose to make the following motion for EC email ballot. Please
>>>> respond with any comments that you think will improve the motion.
>>>>
>>>> Background
>>>>
>>>> On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
>>>> based on entity affiliation. In June 2008, 802.20's first standard
>>>> was approved by the IEEE SA.
>>>>
>>>> Motion
>>>> --------------
>>>> Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the
>>>> beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be
>>>> calculated based on individual attendance records according to the
>>>> 802 LMSC policies and procedures.
>>>> -------------
>>>>
>>>> Because the original decision was from the UC-EC, it is my
>>>> understanding that this will be a UC-EC ballot.
>>>>
>>>> James Gilb
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> 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.