RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
At 18:38 19/03/2003 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>That said, lack of sufficient experience in 802 seems a bit weak as a
>basis for rejecting the election results. Some previous chairs have had
>little more than the experience gained while running their study group.
>Granted that having so little experience was a handicap in running their
>groups and they required extra mentoring to get over the bumps in the road
>so it isn't an ideal situation. Perhaps the answer is that 802 is raising
>the desired qualifications based on past experience.
The point at issue for me was, and still is, that the candidates didn't
even have the experience gained while running the study group, or even of
having attended the SG meetings. Neither, apparently, did more than 50% of
the people voting in the election.
When we were discussing changes to the rules for voting rights a while
back, I seem to remember various people arguing strongly for the position
that the normal rules for gaining a vote (showing up for at least 3
meetings, of which at least 2 plenaries) were so designed to ensure a high
probability that people who just show up for a meeting or two don't get
enfranchised. I would personally like to know what is so different about
the initial meeting of a WG that would ever have persuaded us to do