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



Hi Mike,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still have some concerns.

> This decision was not taken lightly, nor was it taken without alot 
> of consultation and debate with the 802 UC-EC, SASB and IEEE 
> legal staff. Clearly, we decided to follow an exceptional 
> process. I fully believe that everyone involved felt that as 
> it was an exceptional process, a return to normal operation 
> was warranted once that standard was approved.

Precisely, because this decision was not taken lightly, revoking this
decision should also not be taken lightly, as I'm seeing things unfold
presently. I see a present hurry in the EC to change things without
really understanding whether circumstances have indeed changed.

Also I think the action was on the tabulation of voting in the 802.20
WG, resulting in all its work, not just the development of the standard.
Hence I think we need to consider it independent of that single
milestone.

Thanks & best regards,
jose


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> Michael Takefman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual 
> voting rights
> 
> All,
> 
> Jose asks ...
> > There was some "cause" for which, the UC-EC proposed a 
> modified method 
> > of voting in 802.20 WG . Has the UC-EC or the full EC 
> determined that 
> > the circumstances in the group are different now for which the 
> > previous action can be revoked.
> 
> As a member of the 802.20 OC investigating allegations of 
> dominance (both positive and negative) we came to certain 
> decisions and the net result was the suggestion that a form 
> of block tallying  was the best way forward for the WG to 
> produce a consensus standard in a democratic manner. This 
> decision was not taken lightly, nor was it taken without alot 
> of consultation and debate with the 802 UC-EC, SASB and IEEE 
> legal staff. Clearly, we decided to follow an exceptional 
> process. I fully believe that everyone involved felt that as 
> it was an exceptional process, a return to normal operation 
> was warranted once that standard was approved.
> 
> I personally would like to think that the members of the 
> working group and other individuals, companies or WGs with a 
> material interest in the same product space would play nicely 
> in the future and avoid the need to return to this kind of 
> exceptional process state. I believe this behaviour tarnishes 
> the reputation of 802, IEEE, and the individuals or companies 
> involved. Therefore I'd like to think everyone will try to 
> avoid it in the future. In all my years in 802, I was 
> impressed with how the vast majority individuals, companies 
> and WGs could in fact "get along" even when they had very 
> very different ideas on technology, product space requirements etc.
> 
> I cannot promise that the dominance issues in the group are 
> gone, but I do not believe that is a relevant issue for this decision.
> 
> Every WG chair has a responsibility to monitor their WG for 
> dominance issues and bring them before the EC for corrective 
> action. And should they fail in this duty, I'd expect members 
> of the WG to complain first to their chair and finally come 
> to the EC and complain if they cannot resolve the issue 
> within their own WG. If the same shenanigans start in this or 
> any WG, I think 802 has the experience to deal with it, and 
> fear of it happening again shouldn't keep a WG in an 
> exceptional state forever. Speaking from personal experience, 
> keeping 802.20 in an exception state is a drain on 802 and 
> IEEE resources and we should avoid this unless necessary.
> 
> IEEE and 802 have rules that (mostly) work, the crisis is 
> over, lets return to the rules.
> 
> > I personally feel, Mark suggestions to have a straw poll or 
> pose the 
> > question to the 802.20 WG are good ones. Or else the 802 
> UC-EC or full 
> > EC needs to clarify whether the conditions in the 802.20 WG have 
> > changed to warrant this motion. Has this been done?
> 
> Finally, while its nice to ask the WG what it wants to do, I 
> don't think the WG has a say in this. If the problems are 
> gone, the WG will function normally. If the problems are not 
> gone, Mr. Klerer and WG members have the tools needed to 
> figure it out very quickly with the use of roll call votes.
> 
> Once again, as 802.20 has a standard, the conditions have 
> changed and this motion is warranted, so nothing else needs 
> to be done!
> 
> I believe Jose is correct in that the dissolution of the 802 
> UC-EC requires a motion, but I see this as orthogonal to the 
> change in the WG operations. 
> Dissolving the UC-EC does not cause the WG to return to 
> normal operations nor vis-versa. However, I believe that it 
> is also time for a motion to dissolve the UC-EC as part of 
> the normal 802 EC business at the next plenary meeting. I 
> trust I even know who will make that motion (since he has 
> tried it many time before ... John :-) )
> 
> commenting from the cheap seats ...
> 
> mike
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Puthenkulam, Jose P" <jose.p.puthenkulam@INTEL.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual 
> voting rights
> 
> 
> > Dear James,
> >
> > As some how, one of my key questions has been ignored in 
> the discussion,
> > I will try to re-iterate it again, with the hope that some 
> clarification
> > will be provided. I'm addressing you, as you are the mover of the
> > motion.
> >
> > There was some "cause" for which, the UC-EC proposed a 
> modified method
> > of voting in 802.20 WG . Has the UC-EC or the full EC 
> determined that
> > the circumstances in the group are different now for which 
> the previous
> > action can be revoked.
> >
> > So far, other than the motion being made, I've not seen a clear
> > articulation of the basis for why this motion is being made.
> >
> > If this is motion is primarily with a view for dissolving 
> the UC-EC, I
> > do not see any connection between that and this motion, 
> other than the
> > fact that the UC-EC did make the original decision to 
> change the voting
> > method in 802.20 WG.
> >
> > I personally feel, Mark suggestions to have a straw poll or pose the
> > question to the 802.20 WG are good ones. Or else the 802 
> UC-EC or full
> > EC needs to clarify whether the conditions in the 802.20 WG 
> have changed
> > to warrant this motion. Has this been done?
> >
> > Thanks & best regards,
> > jose
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Puthenkulam, Jose P
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:20 AM
> >> To: 802 SEC
> >> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> >> voting rights
> >>
> >> Dear James,
> >>
> >> I have a question on this motion.
> >>
> >> > On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20
> >> to be based
> >> > on entity affiliation.
> >>
> >> As per this point, I'm assuming there was some "cause" for
> >> which, this action was taken by the UC-EC. Has the UC-EC
> >> determined that the circumstances in the group are different
> >> now? For which the previous action can be revoked.
> >>
> >> Because from Dec 2007 (I guess the year is a typo in your
> >> email) SASB minutes it seems only the oversight
> >> responsibility was transferred to the 802 EC.
> >>
> >> Also the EC motion from Nov 2007 (I'm guessing this is
> >> another year typo) only requests the NC-EC to be dissolved,
> >> so can one draw the conclusion from that motion that the
> >> circumstances in the 802.20 WG has changed? Because even if
> >> the NC-EC is dissolved it only shifts the oversight
> >> responsibility to the full EC.
> >>
> >> My suggestion for this would be that the 802.20 WG pass a
> >> motion explicitly requesting this at the July plenary and
> >> then the EC take action. I would think this is a more orderly
> >> way of proceeding.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to know maybe, if the 802.20 WG has already
> >> requested this change? If they have, then this might be a 
> non-issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks & best regards,
> >> jose
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----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 4:37 AM
> >> > To: 802 SEC
> >> > Subject: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> >> voting rights
> >> >
> >> > 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.