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

RE: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal

I totally agree with Howard.

We are a group of individual human beings, not corporate 
representatives. It's not our position to judge why someone wants to 
participate in a project and whether or not they have corporate 
reasons to do so. We shouldn't make decisions based on what we 
speculate people's motives may be.

When I came to the SEC, most of us seemed to agree that we need to 
treat people as individuals and act as individuals. Now, we seem to 
keep forgetting that. I have recently seen a dramatic cultural change 
in the SEC, and I find it shocking and scary. If we continue down 
this corporate road, we will find ourselves embedded in a morass. 
Let's remember our successful track record and stick to our system! 
There are other, more appropriate, venues to develop corporate 


>I think that paying the expenses would be appropriate. In general I 
>agree that one should only accept a position that one is able to 
>support and many people "donate" (either on their own nickle or with 
>corporate support) their time and travel expenses. These people are 
>going to meetings of groups where they are invested in the result. 
>The investment may be some combination of commercial/financial, 
>altruistic, and sentimental reasons - but in some way they are 
>participating because they are choosing to be there.
>We have a situation where 802 wants to put a neutral third party in 
>as interim chair while things get sorted out in a new working group. 
>They are looking for someone who by definition has no personal or 
>corporate reason to go to the meeting. In the case where we have 
>someone who will be going to a meeting solely because 802 requested 
>his/her services there so that in the absence of that request, the 
>person would not be going to the meeting, then it is appropriate to 
>pay the travel expenses.
>This should be a very rare situation. Generally, we should only be 
>doing projects where there are participants willing and able to fund 
>their own volunteer efforts. In the current situation, we have such 
>participants but 802 is not ready to use their services. Therefore, 
>I think it is up to 802 to fund the participant of the person that 
>802 asks to fill in.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard Frazier []
>Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:58 PM
>To: Paul Nikolich
>Cc:; IEEE802
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal
>I think it is entirely inappropriate for the SEC to
>expend LMSC funds for a particular individual to travel to a working group
>meeting if that individual is a volunteer. There may
>be cases where it is appropriate to pay the travel expenses of an
>individual, but this isn't one of them.
>I acknowledge that my opinion is based in part on the fact that
>I typically travel to at least 10 IEEE standards meetings per year,
>including plenaries, interims, and StB meetings. All of my travel
>expenses have been "donated" to the cause from my personal funds.
>I have been doing this for the last two years without any expectation
>of reimbursement or compensation.
>I am of the opinion that a volunteer should not accept a position of
>responsibility unless they are able to support their time and travel.
>The members of the IEEE Board of Directors receive compensation
>for their travel expenses, but the members of the IEEE-SA, from the
>BoG on down to us plebes, do not.
>On the other hand, if the members of a WG are willing to pay for an
>individual's travel expenses to an interim meeting, then I would not be
>opposed to them collecting funds (through registration fees) for that
>I am strongly opposed to using LMSC funds for this purpose.
>Howard Frazier
>Paul Nikolich wrote:
>>  Dear SEC,
>>  In order to put Jerry's response in context, the tentative proposal
>>  that was discussed with Geoff, Mark, Jeryy and myself last Thursday
>>  afternoon is copied below.
>>  I would appreciate informal feedback from the SEC members if they:
>  >
>>  1) support the general approach
>>  2) support allocating funds (up to $5000) to support Geoff's travel
>>  expenses to the 802.20 Interim meeting
>>  Regards,
>>  --Paul Nikolich
>>  Chairman LMSC
>>  All,
>>  These are the steps we discussed during the meeting March 20, 2003
>>  1) Geoff is committed to continue as interim chair under the following
>>  conditions
>>  1.1) His main responsibility is to act as the 'vote of 802.20' for all
>>  formal SEC decisions.
>>  1.2) His second responsibility is to appoint 'interim vice chairs' and
>>  define their responsibilities
>>  1.3) His third responsibility is to act as a mentor for the interim
>>  vice chairs and new officers (when elected)
>>  1.5) His fourth responsibility is to preside over the election of
>>  officers for 802.20 at the July plenary
>>  1.6) The interim vice-chairs will shoulder all of the work in managing
>>  the day-to-day operations of the 802.20 WG, Geoff will provide
>>  oversight and guidance only. In corporate parlance, the interim
>>  vice-chairs will share the Chief Operating Officer responsibilities
>>  for the WG; the interim chair will be the Chief Executive Officer for
>>  the WG.
>>  2) The interim vice chairs will be Klerer and Upton
>>  2.1) this depends on if Klerer and Upton agree to being so appointed
>>  2.2) this depends on confirmation from the SEC of the interim vice chairs
>>  2.3) the interim vice chairs will manage the detailed day-to-day
>>  operations of the WG. The interim chair and vice-chairs will figure
>>  out how to divide the work among the interim vice chairs.
>>  2.4) the first responsibility of the interim vice chairs is to publish
>>  the proposed work plan for 802.20 and decide (with Geoff) on the
>>  agenda of the May interim meeting.
>>  3) 802.20 constraints
>>  3.1) Membership will be gained and retained per the '2 out of previous
>>  4 session participation' requirement (as per the interim chair's prior
>>  application of that rule).
>>  3.2) Until elected/confirmed 802.20 officers are in place, all
>>  external communications and actions from 802.20 shall be approved by
>>  the SEC.
>>  3.3) no PARs no liaison statements, no press statements
>>  Action items:
>>  - Jerry needs to get confirmation he can accept the interim vice chair
>>  position
>>  - There will be an announcement prior to each session (and placed on
>>  the attendance book) that by signing in attendees are confirming 75%
>>  presence in the meeting
>>  - Paul will informally poll the SEC if it is:
>>  o willing to support the entire approach
>>  o Allocate $5000 for Geoff's travel to Singapore
>>  o Waive the Singapore interim meeting fee
>>  - Geoff will publish his (802.3 based) membership rules
>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>      From: <>
>> <>
>> <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <> ;
>>      <>
>>      Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 4:37 PM
>  >
>>      Subject: Response to 802.20 Proposal
>>      Dear Paul,
>>      I thank you and Geoff calling Thursday to review your proposal.
>>      Your proposal would:
>>      - - appoint Mark Klerer and myself as interim working Vice Chairs
>>      under Geoff
>>      - - require voting members who became voting members at the Dallas
>>      meeting to
>>      also attend both the Singapore interim meeting and the San
>>      Francisco plenary
>>      meeting to remain voting members for the July plenary meeting so
>>      as to vote in
>>      the new elections
>>      - - provides no roles for the elected Vice Chairs.
>>      After reviewing Paul's minutes of the call and speaking with a
>>      number of 802.20 members, I respectfully reject the suggested
>>      approach. More work is needed to refine the approach. The
>>      refinements and work should take into account:
>>      - - disenfranchisement of existing voting 802.20 members in
>>      contradiction to existing
>>      procedures
>>      - - the creating of a Singapore interim meeting attendance
>>      requirement that may be
>>      particularly onerous given our industry's financial situation;
>>      this has the
>>      appearance of being arbitrary
>>      - - lack of a reason to not seat the elected officers on the basis
>>      there is no rule
>>      requiring 802 experience; in your line by line review of the
>>      procedures before the
>>      election no mention of this requirement was covered, even though the
>>      nominees were know for at least a day prior to the election
>>      - - past precedent in 802.16 for seating a Working Group Chair
>>      with limited 802
>>      experience
>>      - - unclear basis for Mark Klerer's role since he was not elected
>>      - - and no roles for the elected Vice Chairs who will also need to
>>      get 802 experience
>>      in managing the group.
>>      By obtaining inputs and views from a large set of 802.20 members
>>      including the two elected Vice Chairs, we can together create a
>>      solution for moving the group forward. Though traveling next week,
>>      I will continue to seek further inputs from a wide selection of
>>      802.20 members.
>>      A conference call with you and the Executive Committee with a goal
>>      of developing a revised proposal is a suggested next step. I will
>>      ensure my availability anytime on April 1 through April 4th. If
>>      these dates do not work for you, I will try to be available as
>>      best I can at other times so as to solve this problem in an
>>      expeditious manner.
>>      Sincerely,
>>      Jerry Upton