Re: [802SEC] +++Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights+++UC-EC voting members only+++ballot closes 12JUL08
All,
I approve.
Bruce Kraemer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:18 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] +++Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights+++UC-EC voting members only+++ballot closes 12JUL08
All,
The below motion is recognized by the EC Chair and conduct of an email
ballot is delegated to Gilb. Only the UC-EC voting members may cast
ballots, anyone may participate in the email discussion. A simple
majority
of UC-EC voting members is required for the ballot to pass. The
duration of
the ballot shall be from 29JUN08 to 11:59pm AOE 12JUL08 (this is one day
after Klerer's straw poll of the 802.20 WG is complete.)
Motion: 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.
Move: Gilb Second: Jeffree
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
> Seconded.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 04:50 29/06/2008, you wrote:
>>Pat
>>
>>Thanks for the clarification, that agrees with my reading of the
rules.
>>
>>So, we have had a lot of discussion on the rationale for the motion as
>>well as the text for the motion. However, the most basic rationale is
>>this:
>>
>> - 802 has traditionally been run with individual voting for all WGs.
>> - 802.20 is not currently running under either individual voting or
>> entity voting. Rather block voting (or, if you prefer, a bastardized
>> version of entity voting) has been externally imposed on the 802.20
WG by
>> the 802 UC-EC.
>> - This extraordinary requirement in procedure was to have expired
upon
>> approval of the 802.20 standard
>> - IEEE Std 802.20-2008 has been approved by the IEEE SA
>>
>>Therefore, I officially make the following motion to 802 for email
ballot
>>and formally request a second:
>>
>>-------------
>>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.
>>-------------
>>
>>I further request that the 802 chair rule on the appropriate voting
pool
>>for the motion (802 EC or 802 UC-EC), the criteria for passing the
motion
>>and to delegate the running of the ballot to the appropriate 802 EC
>>member.
>>
>>Respectfully submitted,
>>James Gilb
>>802 Recording Secretary
>>
>>Pat Thaler wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> ----------
> 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.