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

FW: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on SEC electronic balloting - Closed!

Title: Message

Dear SEC members,


The ballot on “SEC electronic balloting” is now closed.  The ballot fails as indicated below.  Please review the results (vote tally and comments) for accuracy and let me know if you see any errors.  I believe all the comments are resolvable.  I presume those that did not vote had no further comments to add.  If you have any further comments, please send them to me and I will attempt to incorporate them in my recommended comment resolution.  I will send out a proposed resolution prior to the March plenary (probably towards the end of February).


Thanks to everyone for the comments and consideration.


Best Regards,





Ballot Results and comments as of 2/7/03


00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                     With Comments

01 Geoff Thompson                  DIS                     With Comments

02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV

04 Bob O'Hara                                      DNV

05 Bill Quackenbush                                DNV

06 Tony Jeffree                    DIS                     With Comments

07 Bob Grow                                        DNV

08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV

09 Bob Heile                                       DNV

10 Roger Marks                                     DNV

11 Mike Takefman                                   DNV

12 Carl Stevenson                  DIS                     With Comments

13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV

14 Mark Klerer                                     DNV


            totals:      0 APP   4 DIS   0 ABS  11 DNV


10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.



Comments to date:



Geoff Thompson []              Tue 2/4/2003 2:24 PM


I vote DISAPPROVE on the basis of other comments that I expect to have fixed

as well as...

In 3.4.2 (as well as elsewhere in the P&P) there is no text dealing with how we have to handle comments from those LMSC members (or others) who are not on the SEC. This needs to be handled with something like:

"All comments from those outside the membership of the SEC shall be considered. Commenters from outside the voting membership of the SEC are urged to seek to have a voter (normally their Working Group Chair) include commenter's viewpoint in their vote."

I am thinking we should say what happens when and if a WG Chair (or someone jumping in to sure the deadline is met) DOESN'T  get the material forwarded to a WG reflector within 5 days. Do we invalidate the ballot? This would equivalent to a pocket veto and a bad idea. We could bump the schedule on the basis of the last distribution date but that gets complicated and could invalidate a rules ballot on the basis of late closing date. I'm not exactly sure how to fix this. I would like to discuss this during the rules meeting. I do hope, however, that we can avoid deep-ending on the issue. Posting ballots on the web-site would help some.

In: Electronic Balloting
"Executive Committee Ballots shall be conducted by electronic means."
needs to be changed to:
"Executive Committee Ballots between plenaries shall be conducted by electronic means."
to suitably distinguish them from votes in SEC session.

New change in 3.6.3 while we are in the neighborhood
"to close thirty (30) days prior to the next Plenary Session"
needs to be changed to:
"to close at least thirty (30) days prior to the next Plenary Session"




Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) []        Tue 1/14/2003 5:52 AM


I vote Disapprove.  I will change my vote to APPROVE if the

comments made by Pat Thaler and Tony Jeffree are accepted.




Paul Nikolich []                     Mon 1/13/2003 8:22 PM


I vote Disapprove.  I will change my vote to APPROVE if the comments made by

Pat Thaler and Tony Jeffree are accepted.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                    Thu 1/9/2003 6:10 PM


Thanks Mat. Your suggestion looks fine to me.




Tony Jeffree []                         Wed 1/8/2003 5:46 PM


I vote approve subject to fixing a couple of minor "nits". The proposed reads:


"After all standards, recommended practices and Technical Reports for which

a hibernating working group is responsible are withdrawn or transferred to

another group or groups, the hibernating working group will be disbanded.


The disbanding of a Working Group requires an Executive Committee ballot. A

disbanded Working Group is then completely abolished."


If the working group "..will be disbanded" when all its documents are

withdrawn or transferred, then it is not clear why there is a need for a

ballot. I think what this should be saying is that when its work is done,

an EC ballot is run to determine whether to disband the WG.


It would also help considerably if the last para was re-worded to:


a) make it clear that the question on the ballot is whether to disband the

WG (as opposed to just any question that springs to mind); and


b) make it clear that the ballot has to pass in order for the WG to be

disbanded; and


c) clarify what happens if this ballot should fail; and


d) not beg the question as to what the difference is between disbanding and

abolishing a WG.


Perhaps a re-wording along these lines would fix these problems:


"After all standards, recommended practices and Technical Reports for which

a hibernating working group is responsible are withdrawn or transferred to

another group or groups, an Executive Committee ballot shall be initiated,

in order to determine whether the working group will be disbanded.


If this Executive Committee ballot passes (i.e., shows that a majority of

the Executive Committee is in favour of disbanding the Working Group), then

the Working Group is disbanded. If the ballot fails, then the Chair shall

determine a future date for a re-run of the ballot."




Sherman, Matthew J (Matthew)                              Tue 1/7/2003 6:38 PM


I agree with all your suggestions.  If I were to effect what you suggest

regarding a minimum duration on rules change ballots, I would do the



In section 3.6.3 after "rules changes" I would insert "shall be at least

30 days in length, and"


I'm open to further comment, but we can work the details during comment



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                    Tue 1/7/2003 5:34 PM


Substantive: There is a requirement that ballots be forwarded to WG and TAG reflectors within 5 working days, but no requirement for minimum duration of ballots so that distribution may occur after the Executive Committee ballot has closed. At a minimum, at least put in a requirement that the ballot duration be something longer than 5 working days.


There is no minimum duration for rules change ballots and no minimum time between distribution of the rules change and close of the ballot. In the existing rules that time period is 30 days. A rules change should not be done lightly and urgency is not dictating a short duration so it should have a minimum time period. 30 days would be reasonable.


Editorial: "shall determine minimum duration of the ballot, issue the ballot and tally the results." reads better to me because that is the order one does the actions.

















Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877