Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
It hasn't been announced that a vote is started yet. Paul has to do that
or delegate it to someone.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:36 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
I approve.
John Lemon
On 6/25/2008 4:10 PM, James Gilb wrote:
> All
>
> As a reminder, the motion was:
> -------------
> 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.
> --------------
>
> James Gilb
>
> Michael Lynch wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> ----------
> 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.