[802SEC] RE: Rules Language interpretation on Voting
Mike, I believe that it was a common practice in Pat Thaler's 802.12 group.
They frequently took both individual and per-company votes on the same
motion to see if there was a dramatic difference.
When dealing with potential Block-Voting abuses, having that kind of data to
refer to helps a lot if you do have to make a ruling. Roll call votes also
provide precise data.
When folks are thus made explicitly aware of the impending hammer, they tend
to modify their behavior to mitigate the problem.
Per company voting is not recognized by IEEE as a valid mechanism, so you do
need to do both, but the data collected can make a convincing case for
reducing all the votes from a single company to count as just a single vote
per the rules. In Pat's case, the mechanism worked very well and the
problem soon went away. You should ask her for more details.
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Ph: (425) 865-2443
Fx: (425) 865-6721
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Tony Jeffree
Cc: Paul Nikolich; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; Rigsbee, Everett O; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Rules Language interpretation on Voting
thanks for the responses so far, I agree that descending into a
rules arguement in the WG will cause us to enter a rather special
level of hell that I want to avoid at almost all costs. I say almost
because if at the end of the day, this startup refuses to act
reasonably then the I have to decide if we want to just wait them
out, which I fear would put the market acceptance of the standard
I have informed the two leaders of the companies involved that
the behavior was unacceptable and that they owe the WG simulation
results and presentations if they continue to block at the next
meeting. And their already sullied reputations will be further
tarnished (hows that for switching metaphors).
I do not like to threaten that particular rule if I cannot go
through with it, as a bluff called leaves you with much less
power in the future. It has been mentioned to me by one old timer
that per company votes have been done in the past although
rarely. Does anyone have direct experience with it? I.E. can the
WG make a proceedural decision to hold a vote on a 1 Vote per
Michael Takefman email@example.com
Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867