Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Mike,
I would like to know the results of the Straw poll Mark is running. I
would like the EC to review the results in light of the present
membership in the 802.20 WG. Then after adequate deliberation and
discussions as to whether conditions have improved from the past, the
next logical step proposed should be taken.
All I'm asking for is adequate deliberation of the issues, not in
private meetings, but in an open manner, where there is enough public
scrutiny from all concerned.
Hope this clarifies my perspective.
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: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:50 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> voting rights
>
> Jose,
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, I clearly stated: The 802.20
> OC, the 802 UC-EC, the SASB-OC, IEEE legal council and the
> SASB took a decision with the understanding that the special
> operating mode had a specific end trigger. We've reached that
> point, and the conditions have been met.
>
> In fact, the 802.20 OC, and 802.20 UC-EC has not rushed to
> make this change.
> It was proposed about a
> year ago, debated and the decision was taken to wait until
> SASB approval of the standard. I recognize that to an outside
> observer such as yourself, it might appear as this were a
> rush to action, let me assure you that it is not.
>
> As you were at none of those meeting (as you would have been
> deemed conflicted), we didn't get the chance to hear from
> you. If you have concrete and specific reasons / information
> as to why the 802.20 WG should not be returned to normal
> operation, I am sure everyone would be happy to hear them.
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Puthenkulam, Jose P" <jose.p.puthenkulam@intel.com>
> To: "Michael Takefman" <michael.takefman@sympatico.ca>;
> <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:00 PM
> Subject: 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.