Re: [802SEC] Q&A on the operation of the 802.11ax dominance remedy

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>]

James (and Adrian too, of course)-

Thanks for your response.

My thinking on this issue has evolved a little so my reactions mixed in below may not exactly match what I asserted earlier.

On Nov 29, 2016, at 9:09 PMPST, James P. K. Gilb <gilb@ieee.org> wrote:

Geoff

Our rules are mostly silent on the running of Working Group letter ballots (see Clause 11.0 in the IEEE 802 LMSC Working Group Policies and Procedures for more information).  I don't know what our WGs do with respect to the "ballot pool" as the WGs don't formally create one.

My thinking is (not surprisingly) rooted in 802.3 WG ballot voting practice.  The foundation principal in .3 rules (from before there were any 802 rules) was that WG ballot was "practice for Sponsor Ballot".  Therefore, if there was any procedural issue in balloting, we looked to SA practice to resolve the issue.  In that vein, the balloting group on 802.3 standards has always been fixed at those who were Working Group voters at the opening date of the ballot.  This was usually (but not necessarily) the membership at the close of the previous plenary.

Under this system, the affiliation for record purposes would also be fixed at the opening of WG ballot.  This has never been an issue in .3 so it has never been stressed or tested.  I can imagine how it could be possible for it to be a problem (e.g. an acquisition after initial ballot but before recircs) but we haven't run into that.

I would note that the action taken by the EC and what is allowed for in our rules regards only how the votes are counted ("treat that organizations’ vote as one" from 3.4.1 x) in WG P&P).

As for individuals subject to special measures losing voting rights for lack of response, IMHO this would still be possible.  However, that determination is up to the WG chair (who can, for example, choose not to drop voters).

I don't think the rules address this.  I would have no trouble going either way, that is:

- An individual voter is relieved of his obligation to vote individually.  If he wishes he can input his comments and weight on the vote to the ONE vote that the SIG is entitled to cast. (This is, after all, how it is done in entity balloting)

- An individual voter still has his obligation to vote individually.  It is just that his individual comments and votes will be entered as coming from an OBSERVER rather than as from a VOTER when the ballot return stats are generated.

The most important aspect of this is that the WG Chair makes the decision on which way to do this and communicates it clearly to the entire WG before the opening of Initial WG Ballot.

If we treat it as a "fixed" pool as in Sponsor Ballot, then it would remain fixed for all recirculation ballots as well.

I agree.  I actually think this is a necessary simplification of the process.  If you allow the balloting group to change during ballot you have the potential for many more decision points within the ballot cycle which, in turn, opens up many more opportunities for filing an appeal. This seems like a bad idea.

The 802.11 WG approved starting WG letter ballot without this information and I expect they may would want to revisit this vote if the ballot pool is to be fixed as in Sponsor Ballot.

As an additional corner case, consider this.  Individual A leaves Company A (subject to special measures) during the ballot process and does not subsequently become employed or affiliated with any other company subject to special measures.  As voting rights are based on the individual, I would assert that Individual A ceases to be subject to special measures upon informing the 802.11 WG Chair (perhaps with notice to the EC as well).

This is a non-issue with a fixed balloting group.  See above.

Individual A would also then be required to respond to the ballot to maintain voting rights.

James Gilb

Best regards,

Geoff Thompson

On 11/24/2016 02:06 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:

Adrian-

You are incorrect.
You called it a "vote"
A "vote" is an item that shows up in the return stats.
A "vote" cannot be cast by someone who has been removed from the balloting group.
Anyone can comment
All comments have  to be considered.
The response to each comment must be included in the comment database.

Geoff

On Nov 24, 2016, at 2:00 PMPST, Adrian Stephens <adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org> wrote:

To the second point,  I disagree.  There is nothing in the WG ballot process that identifies a comment as coming
from an observer.  So it cannot be treated as though it came from an observer,  because this information is not
known to those resolving the comment.  They only thing they see is "must be satisfied=no".

---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.