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.