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

RE: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July

Roger & Colleagues,  

I can recollect only one case in which the rule against block voting was in fact applied during the last 20 years of 802 meetings.  It was in the case of a letter ballot in which all 12 individuals from a single company voted NO on a letter ballot and all attached a Xerox copy of the exact same comment as their reason for voting NO.  In that particularly blatant case the SEC agreed to treat all 12 NO votes as a single NO vote.  So Roger is correct that it takes a rather extraordinary circumstance to justify application of the rule.  

I am aware that some Working Groups have mutually agreed to take votes both by individuals and by company on critical issues to see if there were the possibility that block voting could be altering the outcome of the voting process, but as far as I am aware, these measures have always produced negative findings, and no charges of block voting were ever leveled as a result.  

I am not opposed to allowing a Working Group to choose to apply such a metric since this may in fact help to alleviate concerns that block voting is having a significant impact, but it is not at all clear to me how one could apply a remedy should the results indicate a positive bias.  I think Roger is quite correct that this area can quickly become the slippery slope where we degenerate into a nether world of accusation and innuendo, and all chance for productive work is lost to political haggling and dispute.  

So let's not go there, if we can possibly avoid it.   :-)   

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July


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
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks []
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:35 AM
>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
>> 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