Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Paul.
I second it.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG" <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: 6/25/08 13:56
Subject: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
All,
Can we please get someone to second this motion?
The motion will be decided by the UC-EC, so we'll need a UC-EC member to
second it. As a reminder, the UC-EC consists of: voters: Gilb, Lemon, Law,
Lynch, Kraemer, Hawkins, Rigsbee, Jeffree, Heile and non-voters Thompson,
Nikolich.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
> James,
>
> I disagree regarding this statement:
>> It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting (apparently
>
>> mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE SA
> web
>> pages) under the rules defined by the SA.
>
> While the SA has defined rules for entity voting, it isn't clear how to
> apply them to have one Working Group with a mix of entity and individual
> voting PARs. For example, there are different membership requirements
> for a working group developing standards under the entity method and
> under the individual method. Does a Working Group with a mix of PARs
> have two voting lists - one entity and one individual? If so, which is
> used for voting on items that aren't tied to one of the PARs such as
> electing a chair or a directed position regarding another group's PAR?
>
> There is also a difference in sponsor operating procedures. For sponsors
> developing individual standards, 5.1.1 of the SB-OM says they must have
> P & P and can use the model operating procedures but then it goes on to
> say: "There are also operating procedures available for Sponsors
> developing a standard using the entity method of participation, and
> Sponsors shall utilize these procedures as the basis for entity
> standardization." So there are different (model) operating procedures
> for sponsors depending on whether they are developing under the
> individual and entity method.
>
> Therefore, it is not clear that the rules defined by the SA cover
> operation of a sponsor or a Working Group developing PARs under both
> individual and entity methods at the same time. Because the procedures
> for an entity sponsor allow sponsor voting to be by individuals, it
> might be possible to merge entity and individual projects into an single
> sponsor. Merging them into a single WG presents more of a problem.
>
> Regards,
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
> rights
>
> Wow, I am having some trouble typing here.
>
> In the motion passed on July 16, 2007, "shall e as" should have been
> "shall be as"
>
> Instead of:
>
> If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting
> or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
>
> I meant to say:
>
> If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting
> or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting, it can decide
> to do that by a vote of the Working Group, subject to approval by the
> 802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as appropriate.
>
> I am looking for a second and/or suggestions to help with the wording.
>
> James Gilb
>
> James Gilb wrote:
>> All
>>
>> Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).
>>
>> June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
>> December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and
>> returning all oversight to the EC.
>>
>> I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed session,
> July
>> 16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following motion was
> approved:
>>
>> "Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working
>> group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with one
>> vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as determined by
> the
>> 802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their primary
>> affiliation and other information available to the OC."
>>
>> It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting (apparently
>
>> mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE SA
> web
>> pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may require some
>> clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the 802.20 P&P and
> OM.
>>
>> It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity voting process,
>
>> it used one based on voting blocs.
>>
>> If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
> voting
>> or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
>>
>> The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original state and
> to
>> allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of action,
> including,
>> if they wish, to switch to entity voting.
>>
>> James Gilb
>>
>> PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me to clarify
> the
>> history and status of 802.20.
>>
>> James Gilb wrote:
>>> All
>>>
>>> I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine the
>>> valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>>
>>> On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
> based
>>> on entity affiliation.
>>>
>>> SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in December
> 2007.
>>>
>>> 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."
>>>
>>> The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
>>> superior rules.
>>> --------------
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do not
> explicitly
>>> deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example, what constitutes
>
>>> an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various individuals were
> grouped
>>> by the oversight committee into a single entity vote.)
>>>
>>> If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting group, we
>>> should take to the time to write the P&P to support this. In the
> mean
>>> time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.
>>>
>>> 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.