Just a note that the plan below was proposed by John Hawkins. It was at
the end of his email and I just copied it up to the top for visibility.
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 5:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec
Secretary T&L Funding
John,
I already voted approve. I'm not sure we have an official process for
this, but my view is that participants in an electronic ballot can change
their votes until the ballot is closed. If anyone disagrees, we can ask
Paul for a formal ruling. I have been persuaded by some of arguments
from other EC members.
Accordingly, I'd like to change my vote to disapprove and note that I
agree with Pat's plan below.
Best Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Electronics, Intelligence, & Support (EI&S)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 5:12 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec
Secretary T&L Funding
John,
I haven't voted yet. I would feel much more comfortable with the course
of action that you proposed (moving it up to the top of the message to
make it more visible):
1. Re-word the motion to include the "without precedent" language
2. Re-word the motion to cover March expenses only (per Geoff's
suggestion)
3. Re-issue the motion and call for new votes, with a new 10-day clock
4. Schedule a longer discussion for March
5. Formulate a succession plan for discussion in March
On the one hand, I sympathize with the concerns that Geoff, David and
Tony brought up. On the other hand, as a past treasurer, I realize how
hard Buzz works on our behalf and the money that he saves us in
negotiation with the hotels which is probably much more than the sum we
are talking about here.
I prefer to vote support for just March now and to leave the rest for
discussion at the meeting to maintain openness.
I am voting disapprove on the current motion to help move us along to the
new one.
Regards,
Pat
P.S. I have before proposed that email voting should consist of two
phases - one where the motion is up for discussion and people can suggest
amendments followed by the motion maker freezing the text and starting
the voting phase. This may not be necessary for certain routine motions
like approval to sponsor ballot when the conditional approval conditions
weren't met, but for items like this, it would be helpfult.
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Hawkins
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:39 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec
Secretary T&L Funding
Folks,
Thanks for the good points being made by all (and I see David's email
came in just as I'm typing this). I appreciate the constructive and
helpful tone that has been set (and would expect no less from this
group).
I suspect more votes might "flip" given some of the points being made,
so let me attempt to suggest a way forward.
First, I'll see if I can synthesize the major points:
1. On balloting by email: I agree that the mechanics are
less-than-satisfactory. Voting on the motion, discussing the merits of
the motion, proposing amendments to the motion, flipping votes on the
motion, all go on simultaneously which leads to no lack of confusion.
Perhaps we can change that in the future, but it is what it is, and I
don't propose we change that just now.
2. On making decisions that haven't been socialized with or endorsed
by the WGs: I can see the point, BUT do keep in mind, we are an
executive body that is here to make executive decisions. Sometimes the
matter is time-sensitive, or is just not of major import to the WGs.
Just as in corporate governance, shareholders have the right to direct
the board of directors to a given position and ultimately to replace
them should they find themselves not being represented adequately. But
that doesn't mean the board polls the shareholders on every issue that
comes up.
3. On changing our "ongoing practices" without endorsement of the WGs:
I couldn't agree more. Hence trying to make sure this requires annual
approval by the EC.
4. On "conflict of interest": I'm not sure I follow the entire
argument just yet. Furthermore, not sure how outsourcing or dividing
the function changes the basic facts in that regard. But I agree, this
is best left to a live discussion. Again, my apologies for leaving
this off the November agenda. I expect the same won't happen in March
(i.e. don't book that early flight home :-).
5. On the issue of precedent: David points out correctly that the
motion on Arnie's arrangement included the "without precedent"
language. I left it out of this one because I didn't see what it
accomplished. Perhaps I do now given the current discussion. I'm happy
to re-include it if it helps. But note I'm not arguing we
must/should/can do this because we've done it before. I'm just saying
it's a similar situation: we're in a similar bind, and this approach
relieves the pain point. That's all.
6. On being mandated by SA to spend money: Simply not the case here.
Whether it was before or not may be relevant to the precedent question
above, but is not the case here.
7. On the impropriety of retroactive payments: I apologize again for
overlooking this in November. I've spoken with Buzz, and he has agreed
to forgo that reimbursement request.
8. On the basic fairness of only reimbursing select EC members'
expenses: Again, I can see the point, but in my mind this is a
temporary supply and demand question. At this specific point in time,
we have a specific demand that Buzz can readily fulfill, given a
little (and I mean a little) financial support. I'm not saying any EC
member is replaceable, but I have a hunch that the set of people
willing to volunteer to run a WG is larger than the set of people
willing to *volunteer* to be Exec Sec. For most people this is simply
a matter of being able to deliver more value to the standards process
and to their sponsors as a WG chair than as Exec Sec. So we have a
significant demand, and a small supply. Furthermore, this is a
temporary problem which we are saying needs to be addressed long term
(some of you have suggested a few approaches). As I see it, this is
the path of least resistance just now. Consider the cost of even a
single "botched" meeting. We've come close before, but a talented and
well connected Exec Sec was pulled our stuff out of the proverbial
fire. Throwing this function to the first willing person that comes
along could lead to a very costly learning curve.
9. On there being better ways to accomplish this: I'm very glad to
hear that, as I've been struggling with it for some time. Let's talk
about it in March (actually, let me know your thoughts before then via
email/phone/etc).
So what now....
I'd propose to do the following:
1. Re-word the motion to include the "without precedent" language
2. Re-word the motion to cover March expenses only (per Geoff's
suggestion)
3. Re-issue the motion and call for new votes, with a new 10-day clock
4. Schedule a longer discussion for March
5. Formulate a succession plan for discussion in March
Paul, can you comment on this approach before I go off half baked?
Perhaps the best formal approach is to take Geoff's suggestion and
rule the current motion out of order as to allow for the new one? Your
call there.
Thanks again everyone for the feedback.
j
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Hawkins, John <jhawkins@ciena.com>
wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:09 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L
Funding
Tony-
Thanks for the support.
I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding the extent to which Arnie
really set the precedent. Arnie was really a "hired gun" from the
outside that the SASB imposed on us and required us to cover his costs.
True that there was money involved but I seen it as a very different
situation.
But whether it actually was different or not and whether we should
accept that incident as a ground breaking precedent or an experiment
that was perhaps a bad idea (or anything in between) is exactly why we
should have the discussion in a face-to-face setting.
Best regards,
Geoff
On 1/11/10 11:25 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Geoff -
I believe your re-wording of the motion as described and justified
below is
appropriate, and so I am changing my vote to "disapprove" pending such
a
re-wording.
However, at least part of the discussion so far has suggested that
such
actions would create a precedent, put us on a slippery slope, etc.
etc. The
reality, in my opinion, is that that precedent has already been set by
the
actions we took some while ago to support the then Chair of 802.20.
Regards,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: 12 January 2010 1:22 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary
T&L
Funding
Colleagues-
Some further thoughts of mine on this motion.
I think it is a bad idea for several reasons.
For some of these reasons, I hope that Paul will rule it out of order
in
its current form.
1. I think paying Buzz for his expenses for past meetings is a bad
idea
and a bad precedent. Buzz (like the rest of us) should decide to come
to meetings or not on the basis of whether or not it is affordable to
him, either through sponsorship or out-of-pocket. I don't think Buzz
(or
anyone) should pay for attending a meeting on the speculation that he
might get 802 to pay for it afterwards as an unbudgeted expense.
Therefore I believe that paying for Buzz's expenses for November 2009
should be declared to be out of order or, at a minimum, a separate
motion to be considered at an in-session meeting (presumably March).
2. I see no urgency in the decision as to whether we pay for the
reimbursements under discussion for July and afterward. Therefore,
that
portion of the motion and the discussion thereof should be declared
out-of-order for this e-mail ballot and deferred until March.
If those actions were followed, then the only appropriate action for
consideration at this time would be a one-time motion (hopefully not
to
set a precedent):
*To provide for reimbursement of reasonable and customary
expenses
(e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc) of the Executive Secretary for
the
March 2010 Plenary Meeting.*
I strongly believe that paying for officer expenses sets us up for a
major change in the way 802 operates and that further operation in
this
mode should not take place without an explicit and considered change
to
our by-laws to allow 802 to pay for certain specified expenses for
particular officers. This should not be done without full discussion
in
the Working Groups and with an accompanying financial impact analysis.
We will be setting a precedent that others will rush to take advantage
of. Many of our officers have been self-employed at one time or
another, myself included.
The fallout of something like this is that effectively 802 could end
up
paying the expenses of all of its officers except for those whose
employers decide to cover expenses. This would significantly change
the
nature of 802 as well as have a significant upward impact on meeting
fees. This would also have to be approved or at least allowed by the
IEEE-SA.
Best regards,
Geoff
Geoffrey O. Thompson
Chair, 802 Emergency Services EC Study Group
Member Emeritus, 802 Executive Committee
GraCaSI Standards Advisory Services
<thompson@ieee.org>
+1.540.227.0059 (Google Voice)
On 1/11/10 7:06 AM, John Hawkins wrote:
Dear EC members,
I should have brought this up in November, but alas it didn't get
done. Apologies in advance for cluttering your inboxes with another
email ballot.
Paul has delegated the conduct of the IEEE 802 EC 10-day ballot on
the
following motion to me.
Motion:
The EC approves the use of IEEE 802 resources for reimbursement of
reasonable and customary expenses (e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc)
for Buzz Rigsbee, the IEEE 802 Executive Secretary, for the following
plenaries, or until he is replaced, whichever is sooner:
- 2009 November plenary
- 2010 March, July, November plenaries
Such reimbursement will be not to exceed $1,000 per plenary, averaged
over the period
Moved: John Hawkins
Seconded: Steve Shellhammer
Start of ballot: Tuesday 12th January, 2010
Close of ballot: Friday 22nd January 2010, 11:59PM EDT
Early close: As required in subclause 3.1.2.2 'Electronic Balloting'
of the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
Manual, this is notice that this ballot may close early once
sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter.
Rationale:
- As most of you are aware, Buzz has now formally retired from
Boeing
and therefore has lost them as source of support for attending our
meetings. Fortunately for us, Buzz is willing to continue his service
as Executive Secretary for the IEEE 802. Given the complexity of this
function, and the significant time and commitment involved, this is a
positive for us.
- The motion proposes that we cover his expenses, at least in
part.
Mostly these would consist of airfare and local transportation, but
may also involve hotel/meals in certain instances. Note that hotels
often "comp" Buzz's room expenses given his role in negotiating
contracts on our behalf, but there could be an exception here or
there
so I'm leaving the motion open to that possibility. Note also that we
are limiting the commitment to actual expenses, not to exceed $1,000
per plenary on average and would be limited to the listed sessions
requiring new approval thereafter. This is modeled after the approach
we used with supporting Arnie's T&L a few years ago, and certainly is
a level we can handle within our current budget.
- I have communicated with Paul and Buzz and we agree that this is
not a long-term solution, as Buzz will someday desire to "retire"
from IEEE 802 as well. We agree that a succession plan is needed and
are investigating the best way forward there. This will be a
difficult
function to fill with a volunteer, as it involves little
technical/standards work, and yet consumes significant time and
commitment. Since Buzz is willing and able, I think this is a wise
investment of a limited amount of our funds in the short term.
Regards,
John
----------
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.