Re: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July
While it is true that the LMSC does not have a explicit rule again
"block voting", the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of section
"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."
which can be viewed as an even stronger prohibition against
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> We don't have rules against block voting. What we have is a statement
> that the "Working Group Chair has the authority to Determine if the
> Working Group is dominated by an organization, and, if so, treat that
> organizations' vote as one (with the approval of the Executive
> People from the same organization tend to vote alike. Is this a
> shocking statement? Is this something we need to be embarrassed
> about? I don't think so.
> There is no burden of proof on individuals to show that they are
> voting with an independent mind, and there is no burden of proof on
> organizations to prove that their members think independently. People
> from the same organization are allowed to vote the same way. This is
> not against the rules!
> A Working Group Chair will not find it easy to conclude that a group
> is "dominated by an organization". And that's the way it should be.
> This rule is, and should be, reserved for extraordinary cases. I
> don't even know what kind of cases they are; I can imagine only a
> few. Maybe a company gets over 25% of the membership and consistently
> holds the Working Group over a barrel.
> And, as I have said before, I still believe that, if we want people
> to act independently of their organization, we ought not to take roll
> call votes. People won't cross the boss if there is a written record
> of it.
> >I agree as do we all - One member, one vote. The problem is when
> >members vote as organizations. This is loosely termed in our rules as
> >"block voting". How can this be evaluated without data to do so? This
> >is not about counting votes as organizations. It is about collecting
> >data so that we know the members are voting as individuals and not
> >organizations. How do you propose we account for block voting if we
> >don't know what organizations people represent?
> >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
> >EMAIL: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:35 AM
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July
> >I am strongly, stridently, opposed to voting by organization or
> >asking people to declare allegiance.
> >What next: we ask Working Group members to disclose their investment
> >portfolios, and those of their brother-in-law? Maybe a blue-ribbon
> >SEC commission (the one that is supposed to "analyze the results")
> >can interview each working group member and decide what in which
> >interest group pigeonhole they belong?
> >One member, one vote. That's the way we do business in 802.
> >>Hi Everyone,
> >>This is an outshoot from my WG initial membership interpretation
> >>effort. An issue I have heard raised a number of times from LMSC EC
> >>members is the question of what procedure should be followed for
> >>elections by 802.20 in July. Personally, I think it is
> >>inappropriate for us to "force" them to use a specific procedure.
> >>On the other hand, clearly people in 802.20 are wondering "what they
> >>can change" that would improve the chances of their officers being
> >>confirmed next time around. Based on reflector discussions to date,
> >>the election procedure itself seems to have been a concern at least
> >>to some EC members. Given that, I think it might make sense if we
> >>"recommend" a procedure that might address the concerns of these EC
> >>members. In my mind we could make a motion recommending a
> >>particular procedure, and have this presented to 802.20 at the
> >>upcoming interim. Mike Takefman has put forward the most detailed
> >>election procedure I have seen suggested to date. Extracting from
> >>one of Mike's recent e-mails that procedure would be:
> >>Everyone who attended 75% of the initial session gets to vote in
> > >July. All consultants should declare who their client is. The
> > >elections (and probably every other vote) should be by roll call.
> > >The SEC should then analyze the results as both 1 organization 1
> > >vote and straight and determine if any difference in result would
> >>occur. If the vote is reverse on a 1 company 1 vote basis, then
> >>that vote should be taken as final.
> >>Personally, I'm okay with everything but the last step. From
> >>126.96.36.199 of the LMSC P&P I believe the WG Chair's job is to:
> >> "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an
> >>organization, and, if so, treat that organizations' vote as one
> >>(with the approval of the Executive Committee)."
> >>I'm not sure if the last step in Mike's process is the best way to
> >>do that. What do other people think?
> >>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
> >>EMAIL: email@example.com