Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Approve
James Gilb
Pat Thaler wrote:
> I don't think it was wrong at the time it was said. It was during
> discussions that occurred before December 07 - at that time we needed to
> request the SASB to dissolve us. If the UC-EC still exists, then the
> motion of the Standards Board in December to hand control back to the EC
> would have passed the authority to dissolve the UC-EC back to us.
>
> I don't have time to check at the moment, but my recollection is that
> the instructions to form the UC-EC were for until 802.20 was approved.
> One could read that or the motion of the SASB that handed control back
> to the EC, not the UC-EC as disbanding the UC-EC. In any case, those
> events either dissolved the UC-EC or passed the ability to do so back to
> us. I have no objection to voting to disband the UC-EC to make the
> status clear.
>
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 1:51 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.