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

Re: [802SEC] IEEE Std 802 WG Ballot proposal

Roger-

That will work for me.
I have one further concern. It regards your wording of item (c).
The inclusion and use of the term "single" is confusing.
It could be interpreted several ways, e.g.
    - If a person indicates a voting membership in more than one WG or TAG, their vote is is disqualified.
    - If a person has a voting membership in more than one WG or TAG, they can submit a valid vote through each group.
        (Bad idea, they are still only one member of 802. One member, one vote)
I believe that this can be fixed by substituting the words"their single primary" for "a single" in item (c).

Best regards,

    Geoff

On Saturday, October 8, 2022, 08:03:02 AM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:


Geoff,

Thanks for the feedback. I’ve tacked your new sentence onto (e).

(a) The ballot group will be the 802.1 WG members as of the ballot initiation.
(b) Everyone is entitled to comment in WG ballot.
(c) Anyone indicating, in a returned ballot, a single WG or TAG membership is eligible to submit a ballot indicating Approve/Dis/Abstain and may indicate comments as MBS.
-That membership (fixed at the start of the ballot) is subject to confirmation.
(d) Comment resolution will be conducted by 802.1 using their existing procedures. All comments marked MBS are treated as such.
(e) Ballot reporting will categorize all results per WG/TAG. In other words, we will see, for each WG/TAG, the votes, the comment stats, and the unresolved MBS. Ballot reporting will also include an all 802 roll-up of the results.
(f) An 802.1 WG request to forward for SA ballot will follow the usual process, including the required 75% approval among the ballot group, with the additional report details.
(g) The procedures will be documented in the ballot announcement, whose distribution will not be restricted.

Cheers,

Roger
On Oct 7, 2022, 8:44 PM -0600, thompson@ieee.org, wrote:
Roger-

There has been so little enthusiasm for my proposal, even as a rough starting point that I am highly open 
to a new approach that is likely to succeed at the EC and meets my criteria of evening out the influence of
voters across 802.

I like your proposal. I have only one suggested change which only changes or rather adds to how the results
are reported. That would fit in to your structure as added text to (e) or be a new one at (e+1/2).

(e+1/2) Ballot reporting will also include an all 802 roll-up of the results.

Presumably when the results are before the EC, each WG chair will be interested and vote will be swayed by
the results from their WG. In addition, each member of the EC should be considering the overall results. 
Thus the roll-up should be included in the required reporting.

Thank you for your suggestion, this would be acceptable to me.

Geoff

On Friday, October 7, 2022, 12:08:41 PM PDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:


Geoff,

I would like to propose an alternative for WG ballot, based on my preference of retaining consistency with existing procedures: 

(a) The ballot group will be the 802.1 WG members as of the ballot initiation.
(b) Everyone is entitled to comment in WG ballot.
(c) Anyone indicating, in a returned ballot, a single WG or TAG membership is eligible to submit a ballot indicating Approve/Dis/Abstain and may indicate comments as MBS.
-That membership (fixed at the start of the ballot) is subject to confirmation.
(d) Comment resolution will be conducted by 802.1 using their existing procedures. All comments marked MBS are treated as such.
(e) Ballot reporting will categorize all results per WG/TAG. In other words, we will see, for each WG/TAG, the votes, the comment stats, and the unresolved MBS. 
(f) An 802.1 WG request to forward for SA ballot will follow the usual process, including the required 75% approval among the ballot group, with the additional report details.
(g) The procedures will be documented in the ballot announcement, whose distribution will not be restricted.

This would give all members an equal opportunity and give everyone, throughout the process, visibility into perspectives per WG. At the end of the process, it will help EC members decide how to vote on forwarding. It still recognizes that the PAR is assigned to the 802.1 WG and that it cannot advance until 802.1 is on board; that requirement is essentially inevitable because the motion is not coming to the EC until there is a motion of the 802.1 WG.

Cheers,

Roger

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1