Re: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
I have been struggling with this issue since it arose. I have come to a
resolution which may or may not be helpful to others.
I first made a search of the LMSC P&P for "affirm", "approv" and
"confirm" looking for all of the text concerning the
aproval/affirmation/confirmation of WG/TAG chairs and vice chairs. I
have found four sections addressing this issue, section 3.1.b, the first
paragraph of section 3.2, section 3.3 and the first and last paragraphs
of section 5.1.2.
As is beginning to appear typical, the text of these sections is
inconsistent. sections 3.1.b, the first paragraph of section 3.2 and
section 3.3 makes no mention of EC approval/affirmation/confirmation of
WG/TAG Chairs or Vice Chairs. The first and last paragraphs of section
5.1.2 clearly requires such EC approval/affirmation/confirmation of
WG/TAG Chairs or Vice Chairs. This is a textbook case of why the
rules/specifications for any given item should NEVER be stated in more
than one place.
My current view on the 802.20 election issue.
The presence of the requirement in 5.1.2 that the EC confirm WG/TWG
Chairs and Vice Chairs clearly implies, at least to me, that the EC may
elect to not confirm the Chair and/or Vice Chairs of a WG or TAG if and
when something appears amiss. The fact that no criteria is stated for
determing whether to confirm or not confirm is to allow the members of
the EC to use their experience and best judgement as to when something
appears to be amiss and not restrict the criteria they use come to that
conclusion. The lack of criteria is, I believe, a strength of the LMSC Rules/P&P.
If the EC elects to not initially confirm a WG/TWG Chair and/or Vice
Chair for whatever concern, there is nothing that prevents the EC from
later electing to confirm a WG/TWG Chair and/or Vice Chair if those
concerns are resolved to the satisfaction of the EC.
I agree with the assertions of several members of the EC there were no
evidence of irregulatities in the mechanics of the 802.20 elections.
That however does not mean that there were no irregularities.
Section 126.96.36.199 of the LMSC Rules/P&P requires among other things
"Working Group members shall participate in the consensus process in a
manner consistent with their professional expert opinion as individuals,
and not as organizational representatives."
It is in compliance with this requirement where some issues have been
raised. An observer at the EC meeting expressed concern during the EC
debate of the 802.20 election confirmation issue that block voting had
occurred. Expression of such a concern at an EC meeting is not a normal
occurance. I have also hear hearsay statements that 802.20 WG packing
and organization direction of WG member voting occurred. Does this mean
that irregularities occurred, no. But it does say to me that
irregularities may have occurred and the concerns need to be
investigated and resolved before the EC can consider a change in its
position on the results of the 802.20 elections.
I voted abstain on the confirmation motion at the EC meeting as I had
not resolved for myself the wiser path. At this point, I support the EC
decision to not confirm the results of the 802.20 elections.
I believe the first order of business is to investigate the issued raised.
> Bob O'Hara wrote:
> I'm sorry Paul, but that point was never made during the meeting and
> can't be assumed to be part of anyone's decision yesterday. I
> certainly don't agree with it. I believe that the decision was made
> for entirely unsupportable reasons. The only point that was made
> regarding the individuals elected by 802.20 was that they had not
> participated in the study group, not that they had no experience in
> 802. Certainly, the elected chair of 802.20 had previous experience
> in 802 and extensive experience in other standards-making
> organizations. Your position is not a reflection of the facts.
> Regarding the decision of the SEC not to affirm the elections of
> 802.20, there was no evidence presented of any irregular procedures,
> failure to follow published procedures, or irregularity in the
> voting. My position, as I stated at the SEC meeting, is that all
> procedures were followed scrupulously and the elections, which I
> observed as an SEC member, were without protest by any person present
> at the 802.20 meeting. As far as I can tell, the decision not to
> affirm was made on the unsupported allegations of two individual
> participants in 802.20. Are we prepared to invalidate every other
> working group decision that requires SEC affirmation with the same
> level of evidence, i.e., two allegations unsupported by any evidence?
> Indeed, no concrete guidance was provided to the appointed interim
> chair of 802.20 on how not to wind up in exactly the same situation
> when the next elections are held. Is the SEC prepared to affirm the
> elections, if the same candidates are nominated and elected at the
> July meeting? Is a single 802 meeting experience enough? If not,
> where is it written in our Policies and Procedures (formerly our
> Rules) that you have to have some number of meetings under your belt
> before you can become an officer of a working group?
> I can't support the opinion you offered as to why the election of the
> officers was not affirmed by the SEC. If asked, I will offer my own,
> quite different, opinion.
> -Bob O'Hara
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: IEEE802
> Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
> Dear SEC,
> People will want to know why the SEC did not affirm the 802.20 officer
> candidates presented to at the closing plenary meeting. I have
> already had two inquiries. In my view, the decision was made
> because the candidates were not qualified due to lack of experience in
> --Paul Nikolich