Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Paul,
I could run a poll. I believe it would need to be a 15 day e-mail ballot. The simplest way is to run it as a poll to request the change to be made by the UC-EC.
My thoughts were to run the tally in two modes. One, with each individual member entitled to vote (that would be the straw poll part) and the second with the designated voters only casting a vote (that could become a formal motion for the request to the UC-EC).
The question would be as follows:
The 802.20 WG requests that the UC-EC restore the voting procedures for business conducted in 802.20 to those specified for groups operating under "Individual Balloting" procedures as specified in the IEEE SA-SB Operations Manual.
Please note you may vote Approve, Do not Approve or Abstain. A vote against this question implies that you do not want to request a change in the voting procedures. Note, however, that the UC-EC is not bound to follow the WG recommendation.
Let me know if you want me to run this, I do not think that you will have enough time to run an EC motion after that prior to the meeting.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:59 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
All,
Mark makes a good points, the WG had no input in the July 2007 mandate to
move the group into modified entity voting. The EC was within its right to
do so in July 2007 and within its right to remove the mandate as well.
Regardless, I welcome immediate input from WG members--why should we wait
until the plenary? Mark, is it possible for you to conduct a straw poll of
the 802.20 participants this week? What would your straw poll question be?
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Klerer, Mark" <mklerer@QUALCOMM.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
> EC Members
>
> I will schedule a straw poll referendum on this issue during the July
> session. However, I do want to point out that the method of balloting and
> voting was mandated to 802.20 and it cannot be changed by the WG itself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:15 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
>
> James -
>
> I believe reverting 802.20 to individual voting rights without giving
> the WG a chance to make their views known is premature - they may
> feel that the existing voting regime is working for them and they
> want to keep it that way. I suggest we leave it up to the WG to make
> a request of the EC in July if that is what they want.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 00:12 25/06/2008, 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.