Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] SA rejected 802's Application for IEEE-SA Corporate Membership

Paul-
A couple of things come to mind.
1.    This looks like it was a staff decision.  That strikes me as inappropriate.
        I believe this decision should be bumped up to the board level.  The questions then becomes what board.

2.    This should be a decision that can be appealed.
       However, all of the appeals procedures that I have read only apply to volunteer decisions,
       not to staff decisions.  This would appear to be a deficiency in SA procedures.
       This needs to be remedied.

3.    The whole reason for this question to come up was lack of coordination
       and the resistance of an entity group to coordination/openness.
       If the SASB and the BoG would fix this the entire issue would go away.

4.    The Computer Society seems to hold itself at some distance from the rest of the Institute (Los Alamitos vs. Piscataway).
       Perhaps there is a level of independence there that could be used to help fix this.

5.    I would assert that the 802 EC is "the governing body (e.g., the Board of Directors) of the entity", i.e. 802 and the rest of the chain upward is a voluntary association.  802 has the right to vote to disassociate itself from the IEEE and is therefore "the governing body".

6.    If the staff and the SASB decide to play hardball and we decide to pursue the issue, then things could get very ugly and that would be a VERY BAD thing.  The following are undesirable outcomes: a) the issue of exclusion of interested parties gets put before ANSI for adjudication, b) this gets to the level of adversarial proceedings between lawyers, c) this will be seen as a MASSIVE failure by staff to be able to manage their herd of cats and the result is that staff will become even weaker that it is now and the whole sand castle will just slowly crumble. d) the whole thing becomes so bitter that 802 has no choice other than to leave the SA. e) I am sure there are other ugly potential results.  Enter your favorites here.

I always thought that the concept of both individual and entity membership within an SDO was a bad idea.  It was trying to fix a situation that has some problems by just trading it for a new set of problems (and thus a new learning curve).  This shows that the situation is worse than that.  Not only is there a whole new environment in which to solve the same old problems, brand new problems have been created.  This is not good.

I dearly hope that upper management both volunteer and professional (802, SA, Institute) simply declare that this situation will not be a problem and declare a fix.  This is the sort of situation for which quality upper management exists.  My personal opinion is that it would be easier to solve it by coming down hard on the original problem which was an unwillingness to admit all materially interested parties to the process.

The fact that the situation has gotten to this point makes me sad.

Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
Member Emeritus, 802 EC
Recipient IEEE-SA Standards Board Distinguished Service Award
   

On 288//12 7:43 AM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear EC Members,
 
Below is the rejection response to 802's application for entity membership.  I will be in Piscataway at SASB meetings today and tomorrow to further discuss this with our 802 colleagues, along with staff and SA volunteers. 
 
We need to figure out what our next steps should be. 
 
Regards,
 
--Paul
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:04 AM
Subject: Your Application for IEEE-SA Corporate Membership


Hello Mr. Nikolich,

Thank you for your response to my question.

My understanding of the IEEE 802 EC is that it is a committee of the 802 LMSC, which reports into a series of board structures.
The IEEE 802 EC is not an independent board and 802 is not an independent entity.

Here is my understanding, again, of 802 LMSC's reporting structure:
  • IEEE 802 LMSC to;
  • IEEE Computer Society Standards Activities Board to;
  • IEEE Computer Society to;
  • IEEE-SA Standards Board (for standards) to;
  • IEEE-SA Board of Governors to;
  • IEEE Board of Directors.

Because IEEE 802 EC is not an independent board and 802 is not an independent entity, the IEEE-SA is rejecting your application for IEEE-SA Corporate Membership.

Please see Section 5.2.1.2.1 Control of our bylaws (http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect5.html) - -

For the purpose of IEEE entity standards development, the term "control" (and its linguistic derivatives, e.g., "controlling," "controlled") means:

  • With respect to for-profit entities: the legal, beneficial, or equitable ownership, directly or indirectly, of more than fifty percent of the capital stock (or other ownership interest, if the entity does not own capital stock) of the entity; or the power to elect or appoint more than fifty percent of the governing body (e.g., the Board of Directors) of the entity.
  • With respect to not-for-profit entities: the power to elect or appoint more than fifty percent of the governing body (e.g., the Board of Directors) of the entity.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best Regards,
Patti

Patricia Sulzer
Program Manager - IEEE-SA Membership
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway NJ 08854 USA
PH: +1 732 562-6381
email: p.sulzer@ieee.org


IEEE. Fostering technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity.
---------- 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.