Dear EC members,
802.11 held a discussion on the dominance report today. What
follows below is my unofficial summary of the discussion that took
place. The notes were captured on the screen in real time.
Please view this as subjective and unapproved.
Comments on report:
- Report
has potential to damage the industry
- Report
has only been available for 2 days
- There
needs to be an opportunity to rebut the findings. The report is long and
generation of a considered rebuttal takes time.
- The
report does not support the conclusion of dominance
- There
is evidence of bias in the report
- Report
is fair. We are
following the approved process doing it the way we are.
- What
about corner case of an acquisition post the report?
- Remedy
itself is unfair
- An
alternative remedy should be considered that is not as
harsh/punitive.
- Straw
poll: how many people
think that the EC should not take an action today?
- Thorough
report. We are at
D1.0, really should
have had this process earlier in the process. Straw poll (below) itself
could be the victim of dominance.
- The
guidance on good/bad SIGs is helpful.
- Our
process is visible to the public, we need to avoid
"badmouthing" ourselves. Caution
should be exercised.
- Recommend
an obligation to inform of SIG membership. Need tools to ensure
professional conduct as an obligation of participation.
- Report
is factual. Nobody
complained at lack of time or bias on TGai dominance report.
- What
examples are there of factual error?
- Report
is factual, but leaves out important facts. Dominance is "… exclusion
of fair", but report
lists many docs and straw polls from complainant, showing fair
consideration. Two
proposals from "long list of authors" failed this week -
demonstrates that dominance is not taking place.
- Report
was specific, but
investigation was into a much broader topic - the role of
SIGs. Use of language
supports claim of bias of authors of report. Many facts not in the
report are relevant.
- There
has been a persistent issue (pattern of behaviour). Nobody has been placed in
a bad position because they have freedom to leave SIG.
- Applaud
effort. Report was not
easy. It is detailed. But disagree with
conclusion. There was
no coercion, votes
were not directed. Sometimes
proposals from "long list of authors" failed. Remedy applying to
companies rather than SIG individual participants goes too
far. We are here as
individuals. Definition
of bad behaviour might also apply to reasonably
consensus-forming.
- Remedy
is draconian, those
who are not participating in any SIG have their vote taken
away.
- WG
chair is obligated to investigate complaints. Motions that failed this
week in TGax might be because members of "long list" are
behaving more cautiously. "unfair
to individuals" is wrong because individuals are affiliated to
companies. It would
not be possible for individuals to resolve their own conflicts
of interest. ~2003
SIGs had known & public identity. Now it happens in secret. Discussions behind the
scenes.
- Due
process is needed. No
need to rush. Strong
feelings on topic of SIGs are evident. Perhaps general
discussion on individual/entity model is due.
--
Sincerely,
Adrian Stephens
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
mailto: adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451 (when in USA)
Skype: adrian_stephens
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
|