-----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.