Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
James,
A motion to Rescind Something Previously Adopted is the appropriate
motion to use to annul or repeal the effect of a previous motion.
My only hesitation would be that it is a motion with special voting
rules in RROR. Approval requires 2/3 or a majority if previous notice
was given at the previous meeting or in the call for the present meeting
or a majority of the entire membership - "whichever is the most
practical to obtain".
If this is done in an email ballot, our regular rule for approval is a
majority of the entire voting membership - so this shouldn't be an
issue.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:10 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
Tony
Thanks for the input, it seems like the motion you propose would achieve
what we want. So, I am OK with it, but I would like to know if anyone
else in the EC can poke holes in the motion. If not, then I am willing
to make the motion you propose.
So, does anyone see that the motion proposed by Tony does not do what we
want, i.e., let 802.20 return to its P&P and OM?
Should we say "... normal operation under 802.20 P&P and superior rules,
effective immediately."?
==============
Moved to rescind the UC-EC motion of 16th July 2007, requiring 802.20
working group votes to be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation,
and to return 802.20 to normal operation under the LMSC P&P, effective
immediately.
===============
James Gilb
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Mark -
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> I just unearthed the wording of the UC-EC motion of 16th July 07:
>
> "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 be as determined
> by the 802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of
> their primary affiliation and other information available to the OC."
>
> That being the case, and noting that we need to get rid of all of the
> requirements of this motion, including the requirement for the OC to
> make determinations of affiliation, I suspect that what is needed to
> unpick all of this is a motion of the following form:
>
> "Moved to rescind the UC-EC motion of 16th July 2007, requiring 802.20
> working group votes to be conducted on the basis of entity
affiliation,
> and to return 802.20 to normal operation under the LMSC P&P, effective
> immediately."
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 15:11 26/06/2008, Klerer, Mark wrote:
>> Tony and all,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding (but the last e-mails were send
when
>> it was deep night on the East Coast).
>>
>> The facts on balloting in 802.20 are a little bit more complicated
and
>> I believe a part of the confusion may stem from the difference in the
>> way the sponsor ballot voting was mandated and the way voting was
>> mandated for the working group. Here are the facts:
>>
>> 1. Voting in the Working Group
>>
>> In the working group individuals gain membership on an individual
>> basis via the normal 802 rules. Individuals must provide their
>> affiliation. These affiliations may/have been verified. Based on that
>> affiliation the individual becomes part of a "unit" (I am using his
as
>> a neutral term between "entity" and "bloc"). Each "unit" designates a
>> voter and an alternate voter. Only the designated voter (or
alternate)
>> is entitled to vote on motions. A "unit" has a vote only if it has at
>> least one individual who has earned membership while affiliated with
>> that "unit".
>>
>> 2. Voting in the Sponsor Ballot
>>
>> In the sponsor ballot pool individuals were assigned by the Oversight
>> Committee to blocs. All individuals were entitled to vote, (i.e.
there
>> are no designated voters). The net vote of a bloc was then computed
>> based on the approved algorithm.
>>
>> I hope this at least gets the facts on the table.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:21 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
>> individual voting rights
>>
>> Since the voting on this hasn't started yet, and this is logically
>> the discussion period before the vote, it would probably be a good
>> idea to get the motion right before we do.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong (Mark?) but I don't believe this is a case
>> of returning 8.2.20 to individual voting or changing anything to do
>> with voting rights - 802.20 participants still vote individually and
>> gain voting membership by the normal 802 rules. The difference is
>> that as per the UC-EC decision of <<insert date here>>, those
>> individual votes are tallied by the 802.20 Chair according to which
>> bloc the individual is deemed to be part of.
>>
>> Returning 802.20 to individual voting doesn't do what we want it to
>> do, because 802.20 is already doing individual voting and already has
>> individual membership. It is how those individual votes are tallied
>> according to blocs that is the problem we want to remove.
>>
>> If we pass the existing motion, it is effectively a no-op, because we
>> still won't have removed the aggregation of votes into blocs. So for
>> the motion to have any effect, it needs to be worded along the lines
of:
>>
>> "Moved to rescind the requirement, imposed on 802.20 on <<whatever
>> date it was>> by the UC-EC, for individual votes to be aggregated
>> according to blocs."
>>
>> I would suggest that the mover and seconder accept the above
>> replacement text as a friendly amendment to the motion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tony
>>
>> At 00:10 26/06/2008, 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.
>
>
> ----------
> 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.