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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC Voting Rules

Title: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC Voting Rules
Again, I also vote disapprove, and agree with at least the majority of Pat's comments below.
I will try to provide my own comments after the January interims.

Carl R. Stevenson

President and Chief Technology Officer

WK3C Wireless LLC

Where wireless is a passion, as well as a profession SM


Wireless Standards, Regulatory & Design Consulting Services

4991 Shimerville Road

Emmaus, PA 18049-4955 USA

phone:  +1 610 965 8799

cellular: +1 610 841 6180



From: [] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC Voting Rules

The primary issue is the suspension for cause addition to 7.1.7. It is unnecessary and invites trouble. If the LMSC chair ever took such an action the chair would be at risk of getting sued. In the case of working group chairs it is giving the LMSC chair an ability to overturn the working group's election of chair. So even if the suspended member didn't choose to sue, the working group might. I also find it difficult to believe that there will be a case where there was strong enough evidence of cause to take this action. If it is absolutely clear that there was extreme misbehavior, the member could probably be convinced to resign. Therefore I don't think we should make this addition. If there is such a provision added, it should require a written complaint to the executive committee and a vote by a supermajority of the Exec.
7.1.7 Are abstentions counted in the denominator is listed as an issue. While I believe that is usually what is meant by a "simple majority" is Yes greater than No, but I'm not sure everyone will agree. I have looked in a number of sources and the definition is hard to come by so if we are going to use it we should include "(i.e. more members voting yes than voting no)". Shouldn't this stated more explicitly? By the way, if we are going to use this term than we could use the term "absolute majority" for what our email ballots require (an absolute majority requires the affirmative vote of more than half the members). I don't see a compelling reason for this change. There has been at least one instance where we did extend a ballot due to poor turnout. Not allowing extension could leave us in a difficult postion if a ballot failed due to being sent out at a bad time. For example, what if there is an urgent motion to resolve a logistical problem with an upcoming meeting and it fails due to lack of participation? Is there a method to move to reconsider? Can a member who didn't vote be considered to have voted with the prevailing side (since not voting and voting No have the same effect) and thus be qualified to move to reconsider? Instead of having to do this, I suggest that we leave it in the judgement of the chair or the chair's designee to determine whether to extend a ballot that has failed due to lack of participation. This comment is also a reason for my disapprove. overlaps the text being balloted on P&P update and doesn't match what was circulated in that ballot. Please remove it from this ballot and handle the changes to the section in the P&P ballot. Editiorial non-binding comment: Here Executive Committee has been left fully spelled out where in other sections you replaced it with EC and in the new text you have "Committee member" without Executive.
Editorial comments:
7.1.7, it appears you have "majority majority".
 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Friday, 07 January, 2005 8:55 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC Voting Rules

Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on EC Voting Rules. This ballot was approved at the Friday November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the meeting.  The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.

Ballot Duration:  1/8/2005 - 2/8/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST

WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your groups, and invite them to comment through you.

Thanks & Regards,



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.

Senior Member Technical Staff


Office: +1 973.633.6344


---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.