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

Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Tony
I have added this to my rules issues tracking sheet and we will discuss it (time permitting) during the Sunday evening rules meeting. 

James Gilb

On 02/28/2014 05:50 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:

While we are digging up the drains on the membership rules, I would observe
that the rule on returning 2 out of the last 3 ballots is unclear as to
whether this applies to:

- Ballots on drafts;
- Ballots on email motions;
- Both

I would also observe, having just closed ballots on 3 email motions, that
the current rules on email ballots (clause 9 of the WG P&P) are pretty
seriously impenetrable. My interpretation is that the IEEE byelaws (Bylaw
I-300.4(4)) place an overriding requirement for approval by at least a
majority of the voting membership, subject to more stringent local rules if
they exist, and that our own (potentially more stringent, but sometimes
less so) rules call for 50% approval of those voting yes or no if the
motion is not technical, or 75% of yes or no if the motion is technical.
The WG P&P refer to Bylaw I-300.4(4) rather than stating locally what the
bylaw actually requires, which makes the impact difficult to ascertain,
especially as the weblink in the WG P&P doesn't work.

Some clarification of the rules here (and maybe even a flowchart?) might
help a great deal.

Regards,
Tony


On 25 February 2014 00:25, Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> wrote:


Pat

I disagree. It is far from obvious, particularly when the retention clause
is followed by a clause titled loss that mentions only one case. Simply
fixing up the title leaves the reader having to look in 3 places in 2
documents to figure out all the loss cases, and one of those cases is in
itself ambiguous IMO because it fails to state the consequences.

Adrian's suggested rewriting of the loss clause fixes that.

Regards,
Tony
On 24 Feb 2014 23:52, "Pat Thaler" <pthaler@broadcom.com> wrote:


I think that it's obvious and doesn't need to be stated that if you fail
to fulfill the requirements for "retention" you aren't a voter. That's what
retention means.

But I agree that "loss" would be better titled "loss due to failure to
return ballots" or something similar.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of James P. K. Gilb
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:22 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Tony

That makes sense.  Right now, we only discuss maintaining membership and
we do not explicitly state that failing to maintain membership results
in losing membership but maintaining current participation credits.

Likewise, we don't explicitly state in Loss that this results in loss of
participation credit for prior sessions (it is implied, but not
explicitly stated).  Geoff's text is a good start and we can get this
cleaned up by the end of July (unfortunately, we can't get it done any
sooner).

James Gilb

On 02/24/2014 04:40 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:

Hi Rick -

The point is that as currently written, there is no clear statement that
failing the retention criteria results in loss of voting status. So

right

now, I believe anyone losing voting rights due to non attendance would

have

a good case for appeal. So adding such a statement might possibly be a

good

plan.

Regards,
Tony


On 24 February 2014 11:31, Rick Alfvin <ralfvin@gmail.com> wrote:


Hi Adrian,
Unfortunately it's not always that simple with the algorithm we use.

  It

is possible for a nearly member to become a voting member at the

beginning

of a plenary and attend less them 75% of that session and lose their

newly

gained voting rights at the close of that plenary. Hence they would

become

an observer not an aspirant.

What I'm saying is that there is no need for a special loss clause for
non-attendance. We simply always apply the algorithm to determine a
person's status, which may fluctuate from session to session.

-Rick Alfvin
Sent from my iPhone 5s

On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:00 AM, "Stephens, Adrian P" <
Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM> wrote:

   Hello Geoffrey and all,



These changes are an improvement to clarity.   But they still don’t
explicitly address the loss due to non-attendance.

The “Loss” subclause is related solely to loss by non-return of

ballots,

but the heading implies its scope is broader than that.

Also we should cover the commonest case first.



IMHO the “Loss” subclause should state:



1.       Loss due to non-attendance results in transition to aspirant

(1

attendance in last 4 plenaries/interims) or non-voter (no attendances

in

last 4 plenaries/interims)

2.       Loss due to non-return of ballots results in transition to
observer and loss of attendances.

3.       Loss due to non-payment of registration results in transition

to

observer and loss of attendances.



Or it should narrow its scope in the heading.



Best Regards,



Adrian P STEPHENS



Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)



----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47



*From:* ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [
mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>] *On Behalf Of

*Geoff

Thompson
*Sent:* 22 February 2014 23:30
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules



James, Colleagues-



I never thought that there was a problem with the rules as stated, but
then my tenure as chair was back when we were less concerned about

cross-WG

uniformity of rules and such items were more at the hands of

individual WG

Chairs.



I have just reviewed the relevant WG P&P text, to wit:



7.2.2. Retention

Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last

four

plenary sessions. One duly constituted recent interim WG or task group
session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions.



7.2.3. Loss

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of
the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned

with an

abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may

be

excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established

as if

the person were a new candidate member.



I believe that it could be improved and more clearly meet what I

believe

are the intentions with the following changes. I believe these changes

are

only changes in wording, not intended meaning:



7.2.2. Retention

Membership is retained by participating by *as indicated by the

required

level of registered attendance* in at least two of the last four

plenary

sessions *and by participating in WG letter ballots*. O*Registered
attendance at o*ne duly constituted recent interim WG or task group
session may be substituted for one of the two plenary sessions.



7.2.3. Loss

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of
the last three WG letter ballots are not returned, or are returned

with an

abstention for other than “lack of technical expertise.” This rule may

be

excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active
participant. If lost per this subclause, membership *participation

credit

by attendance is reset to zero.* is re-established as if the person

were

a new candidate member.



Best regards,



              Geoff





On Feb 22, 2014, at 11:23 AM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:



    All

As I thought about this on Friday, I came to a similar conclusion as

Roger.


Under 7.2.1, the individual in question has achieved "participation
credit" for July 2013 and January 2014.  AFAIK, there is no controversy
concerning that conclusion.

So, the only question is this:  What are the situations under which
"participation credit" for a session can be removed?

I know of only two (thanks Jon for finding the other one):

IEEE LMSC OM 5.4 - Due to failure to "comply with the registration
requirements for that session, and further has not complied with those
requirements within 60 days after the end of the session, including

payment

of any required registration fees,"

IEEE LMSC WG P&P 7.2.3 - If 'two of the last three WG letter ballots

are

not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack

of

technical expertise.”'

I can find no other rule that allows a WG to take away participation
credit earned for a session.

James Gilb

On 02/21/2014 01:53 PM, Roger Marks wrote:

   Adrian,



   As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss

based


   only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that

the


   individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll

   share my views based on that understanding.



   Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An

   individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted

   membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the

   individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some

   session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the

individual


   has recently lost membership.



   I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.



   Regards,



   Roger

   Stephens, Adrian P <mailto:Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM<

Adrian.P.Stephens@INTEL.COM>




    21 February 2014 12:34 AM



    Dear SEC,



    If you are responsible for maintaining voting status for your WG,

    please respond to the



    question at the end of this email.



    A query by an 802.11 member causes me to question how I've

interpreted


    the WG P&P regarding



    loss of membership through non-attendance.



    The WG P&P State: (my highlight)



    7.2.2. Retention



    Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last

    four plenary sessions. One duly



    constituted interim WG or task group session may be substituted for

    one of the two plenary



    sessions.



    7.2.3. Loss



    Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two

    of the last three WG letter



    ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for

other


    than "lack of technical



    expertise." This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the

individual


    is otherwise an active



    participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is

re-established


    as if the person were a new



    candidate member.



    It describes how to retain membership by participation,  but does

not


    state what happens



    if the member fails to maintain membership.    In the case of

failure


    to return ballots,  it is



    explicit that the member is reset as though a new member.



    So,  the rules are ambiguous.   You could interpolate a rule similar

    to the highlighted case



    for non-attendance (which I have unconsciously done in 802.11).  In

    doing so,  I am following



    previous 802.11 vice chairs' interpretation.



    We have a member with the following attendances



    03 2013 - No (plenary)



    05 2013 - No (interim)



    07 2013 - Yes (plenary)



    09 2013 - No (interim)



    11 2013 - No (plenary)  (loses voting rights)



    01 2013 - Yes (interim)



    03 2013 - Yes (plenary)



    According to the "everything reset" interpretation,  the member is

an


    aspirant at the



    start of march.   According to the "2 in last 4 plenaries,

regardless


    of loss of voting rights in this period"



    interpretation,  he is a potential voter.



    The implication of the "does not reset" interpretation is that a

    member never transitions to non-member



    directly,  but always transitions first to aspirant.  And then later

    transitions to non-member.



    IMHO, your working groups must be operating one of the following two

    rules:



    1.Resets to non-member,  loses previous attendances



    2.Reverts to aspirant,  keeps previous attendances for future gain

to


    voting member.



    Please let me know of these rule you are operating.   If it turns

out


    we're all doing the same thing,  we should



    put that in the WG P&P.



    Best Regards,



    Adrian P STEPHENS



    Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)

    Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile,  UK)



    Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)



    ----------------------------------------------

    Intel Corporation (UK) Limited

    Registered No. 1134945 (England)

    Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ

    VAT No: 860 2173 47



    ---------- 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.