Hi Adrian,
I think the key is NDAs. Two guys meeting in the bar to solve a problem is not the issue. An ad
hoc meeting of members outside of an 802 meeting to discuss how to reach consensus should
not be a problem. Neither of these would really involve NDAs. Problems arise when the activities
of the members of this group are secret.
We want to encourage consensus forming but If the goal of a group is consensus forming then
NDAs and secrecy have no place. Bad things happen in secret.
regards,
Dan.
Regarding a need to declare if you are participating in a SIG, if we were to make that requirement, we would also need a definition of a SIG. Does anybody want to propose one?
IMHO this is not trivial, as there is a continuum of formality and inter-dependency, that goes from one extreme of two people meeting in a bar to solve a problem raised in a task group earlier that day to the other extreme of an
incorporated legal entity with NDAs and member agreements.
And, please remember, what we care about is (potential) dominance. Two people meeting in a bar are unlikely to dominate unless there are three in their task group. Two people meeting secretly under NDA likewise.
So perhaps any definition should not relate to the character of the SIG, but its potential impact on a task group, which can be measured in size of membership relative to the activity they are contributing to.
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)
Mobile: +44 7342178905 (when in the UK)
Skype: adrian_stephens
On 2017-04-12 00:49, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
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-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Wednesday, 12 April 2017 6:04 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Possible Signs of Dominance action
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.
---------- 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.