|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Dear EC members,
This ballot closed 9PM EST Wednesday February 25, 2005. Below is the tentative tally--if I have missed your vote or incorrectly tallied it, please resend it to me.
Vote categories: DIS DNV APP ABS
01 Geoff Thompson DNV
02 Mat Sherman APP
03 Buzz Rigsbee APP
04 Bob O'Hara DNV
05 Bill Quackenbush APP*
06 Tony Jeffree APP
07 Bob Grow APP
08 Stuart Kerry APP
09 Bob Heile APP
10 Roger Marks APP
11 Mike Takefman APP
12 Carl Stevenson APP
13 Jerry Upton APP
total: -00- -02- -11- -00-
*BillQ approved with some suggested editorial wording changes as per the attached file "CAG motion Rev WLQ.doc"
Dear EC members,
This is an EC email ballot to make a determination on the below EC motion regarding a request to the IEEE SA BoG for improving IEEE SA Corporate Advisory Group procedures.
This is an urgent matter, as the IEEE SA BoG is meeting the morning of Feb 27 to discuss the matter and I want to have an EC decision completed before then. I will be present at the BoG meeting.
Since this is an urgent matter and the topic has been available for review and comment on the EC reflector since Feb 11 (see http://www.ieee802.org/secmail/msg04887.html for background material), I am setting the duration of the ballot to close the earlier of 9PM EST Feb 25th (6 days) or within 24 hours after every member of the EC has cast a definitive vote (approve, disapprove or abstain).
Please direct your responses to the EC reflector with a CC directly to me (email@example.com).
- Paul Nikolich
Moved: Bob Grow, Second: Tony Jeffree
The IEEE 802 LAN/MAN standards committee (LMSC) requests the IEEE-SA Board of Governors take action to protect the value of IEEE-SA as a standards development organization by requiring proper IEEE-SA, Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) and working group procedures that:
1. allow CAG standards sponsorship for truly new standards activities that are outside the scope of existing working groups;
2. allow CAG standards sponsorship for new standards that are not effectively amendments to existing standards or projects of active working groups;
3. recognize that working groups must make selections between technical alternatives, and prevent the CAG from becoming a mechanism that can be used for undermining the decision making process of working groups by sponsoring competing projects to standards and projects of those working groups;
4. discriminate between disinterest in a proposed standards project and recognize an established working group's position that a proposed standards project is within its area of work and that the proposed project should not be approved.
CAG motion Rev WLQ.doc