Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
James,
And I pointed out that it isn't clear that it is possible under the
rules for the same WG or Sponsor to have both entity and individual
projects. For sponsor there is possibly less of an issue. How to run a
WG that has PARs under both models is not clear under our rules and the
SASB rules provide no guidance either.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:02 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights
Carl
It is true that we have always had individual model. Someone pointed
out that entity voting is possible under the rules, even though we have
never done it. I was just relaying that fact, not advocating for it (I
prefer individual voting).
The motion I have proposed returns us to individual voting for 802.20, a
change from bloc voting which was imposed on the group without their
approval.
What 802.20 does once we have returned them to individual voting is up
to them, subject to approval of the 802 EC and the SA. The 802 EC may
reject a request to create an entity voting project, but that would be
the subject of a future motion and discussion.
James Gilb
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.