Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights



James,

The EC has voted in the past that, as a policy of 802, PARs shall stick to
the individual model, not the entity model.

.20 was an unusual circumstance and a modified form of entity voting was
foisted on that WG by dictate from on high.

I am not sure that the rest of the EC will support a general exemption that
deviates from the "individual model only" policy that has been established
in the past.

Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:52 PM
> To: 802 SEC
> 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.