| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
G'day Adrian & Paul Adrian, thanks for drafting this document. They highlight how difficult it is to recognise dominance and differentiate it from reasonable behaviour Paul, you commented, "In my opinion, as long as the group of individuals working on building consensus are open and transparent in their activities, it probably is OK".
·
Are you proposing that anyone participating in a formal (or informal) SIG be required to declare that in the same way we require company affiliations to be declared? If so then I agree because it is just as important to know SIG
affiliations as company affiliations. Indeed, possibly more so because SIGs have the potential of being much bigger than companies in terms of voting members.
·
Are you proposing that the activities of the SIG be open and transparent? If so then I disagree because this would deny free association. If you went down this path then you would also need to require intra company discussions
be made open and transparent. I think you will agree that is impractical, as well as unacceptable. Andrew -----Original Message----- Adrian, Thank you for drafting this document, it is a good mechanism to stimulate discussion on an extremely (impossibly?) difficult to measure, highly subjective topic. I haven't seen any of our EC colleagues way in yet -- perhaps my comments will help get the comments flowing. My high level comments are as follows: 1) We should try to define and separate "signs" from "evidence". In my mind, "evidence" is something that has documented proof of occurrence (e.g., motion vote tallies). A "sign" is behavior a group chair (or participant) observes (it may be documented by the observer). 2) In your Notes column, the potential explanations for the observed behavior have negative connotations. In some (many?) cases there is a perfectly acceptable explanation for the observed behavior. For example, in the first row, the
explanation for non-existent technical debate is that everyone simply agrees with the proposal on the floor.
Perhaps there should be two explanation columns; one for 'negative' and one for 'normal' or 'positive'. 3) We need to be very careful not to hinder positive consensus building behaviors that naturally occur outside formal meeting time. In my opinion, as long as the group of individuals working on building consensus are open and transparent
in their activities, it probably is OK. If we produce a 'signs/evidence of dominance' document, we should also produce a 'mechanisms for constructive consensus building'
document. Regards, --Paul ------ Original Message ------ From: "Adrian Stephens" <adrian.p.stephens@ieee.org> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org Cc: Sent: 4/7/2017 5:35:53 AM Subject: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv. |