|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Dear EC members, As agreed during the opening EC meeting, attached is my response to a 802.11 WG member's relative to potential 802 P&P inconsistencies with the operation of the 802.11 WG. Regards, --Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "mat sherman" <email@example.com>; "Ken Clements" <Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com>; "Paul Nikolich" <P.Nikolich@ieee.org> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: Response regarding potential Impact of LMSC Rule Problems > Dear Stuart, > > Sorry for the delayed response to your questions, but I wanted to > consult with our 'P&P specialist' (Matthew Sherman) before > responding. I have copied Ken on this email since he orginated the > concern. > However, the > emphasis in my responses is on how interpretation of the P&P might > impact your running of the Working Group, particularly at the next > session. In short I see no impact. > > While Ken has done an excellent job reviewing the P&P for consistency, I > feel he is interpreting it too strictly in some regards. Ken raises many > issues, and I will try and address the key ones here. The answers may > not be what you or Ken want to here. But I note that a process exists > to change the P&P, and if there are rules you (or members of your > Working Group) feel should be different, they are welcome to engage that > process to make changes. > > I particularly invite you to make clarifications since from reading > Ken's e-mail it is clear that the intent of the P&P is not as > transparent as I would like. Those of us who participate in the EC have > been dealing with these issues for years, and it is possible that things > are now obvious to us that are not so to new comers. A new set of eyes > may not see things as we intended. So Ken might be in the best position > to suggest specific clarifications to the LMSC P&P so the intent is > clear. I will try and clarify our intent now. > > Here are some responses to the issues Ken raises: > > 1) Application of Roberts Rules. Ken correctly interprets that IEEE 802 > does NOT strictly operate under Roberts Rules of Order. This has always > been the case. It has never been intended that Roberts rules be > strictly followed within IEEE 802. Rather they are a guide. Some WG > within IEEE 802 chose to more strictly follow Roberts rules. Others do > not. It is a choice left up to the WG Chair and the Working Group. The > key I believe is that the LMSC P&P does not prohibit the WG Chair from > conducting business strictly according to Roberts Rules. If you wish to > conduct business within 802.11 strictly according to Roberts (except > where expressly in conflict with the LMSC P&P or SA governance) you may. > > 2) Types of votes. Ken states that there are only two types of voting > allowed in IEEE802. I disagree. There are two types of voting defined, > but for procedural matters the chair has full discretion. If the chair > wishes to define new types of votes (say votes with a threshold of 50% > instead of 75%) he decides procedural matters and how he will decide > them. The Chair is within their rights to do so as long as they only > applies those methods to procedural issues. This is a matter which has > been discussed in the past and precedent for defining new types of votes > on procedural matters has existed for many years. You should not feel > uncomfortable doing so. > > 3) Elections. Ken notes that there are special votes called out in the > P&P. He specifically states that it requires a 75% vote to elect a > chair. I don't believe it states this anywhere in the LMSC P&P, > although other votes involving elections do require that threshold. The > key here is that an election is a procedural matter. A 75% vote is not > required. Most chairs / WG chose to define specific election procedures > to avoid questions concerning a Chair's discretion. None require a 75% > vote to elect an individual that I am aware. Clear precedent exists for > interpreting the LMSC rules such that a majority vote is sufficient to > elect an individual and that the chair / WG may define specific voting > procedures for elections etc. While the rules can be made clearer, I > feel precedent is clear enough that the election processes used by > 802.11 in the past are still valid for the upcoming elections. > > 4) Meaning of technical. Ken correctly states that the definitions of > technical and procedural are not clearly spelled out in the LMSC P&P. > He particularly cites that the meaning of 'technical' could be > interpreted in more of a 'legal' context rather than meaning something > 'technological'. I would argue that given the context of IEEE 802 as a > technology organization, the usage of the term 'technical' in the > subclause of the P&P in question clearly means something technological. > I think the common usage of the word applies here, and that it is left > up to the chair to interpret gradations in the meaning. It is not > possible to fully interpret all possible meanings of a word. So trying > to 'define' these words within the P&P would at some level fail. This > is one reason why the ultimate interpretation is left to the chair / > working group given the context of the specific issue being considered. > > 5) WG Letter Ballots. I agree with Ken that the wording here is broken. > We have tried in the past to repair it, and for various reasons failed. > (You can't change the rules without a ballot, and if the ballot fails > even if the rules are broken they must remain broken). However, the > wording has generally been interpreted as to allow letter ballots on > issues not concerning a draft with rational constraints (you don't have > to comment on a non-existent draft if you want to vote no to the > social). So please continue holding letter ballots as you have in the > past, and I will try and bring the rules formally into agreement with > our practices. The discrepancy here is not so large that we cannot live > with it for the time being. > > 6) Special votes. This is the most extreme situation I can think of for > the voting issues Ken raises. Ken essentially asks, what if the working > group asks for a directed position or new election, and the WG Chair > refuses to allow the vote because he rules the issue a procedural matter > and decides it by chair's discretion. To my knowledge, this has never > happened. Chairs normally get elected because they are reasonable people > who have a demonstrated ability to be impartial. However, even if such > a thing did happen members of the Working Group have recourse. They can > always bring the matter directly to the EC, and the LMSC P&P state that > a Working Group Chair can be removed 'with cause'. I believe refusal to > have a vote on a directed position or new elections could be taken as > 'cause' for removal. While the process for 'special' procedural votes > can be improved, I believe the existing process provides sufficient safe > guards to ensure a Working Group is protected from a chair who abuses > his powers. > > > I hope these interpretations were helpful. Please do not hesitate to > contact me if you have further questions. > > Paul > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 4:40 PM > To: 'Paul Nikolich' > Cc: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); 'Bob O'Hara (boohara)'; 'Al Petrick'; > email@example.com; Ken-Clements@ieee.org > Subject: URGENT SUBJECT: Coming Impact of LMSC Rule Problems > Importance: High > > > > Paul, > > I have a very urgent matter for you that concerns the LMSC P&P as > revised > January 4, 2006. Immediately when these P&Ps were published I asked my > Vice > Chair (Al Petrick) in charge of our 802.11 P&Ps to review our own versus > the > changes in the LMSC. Indeed I consulted you recently by telephone on the > change process for our WG upcoming Denver session. > > Having started an analysis and change process to our WG P&Ps, which Al > Petrick undertook to complete, an individual member came to me on a > procedural issue with a recent WG internal LB. To cut to the chase, the > issue we had internally palled into obscurity when that member started > to > individually assess the LMSC P&P. Further, knowing the member well he > has > had a lot of exposure to legal issues as well as P&Ps, and finally has > been > a long time member in good standing within the 802.11 WG. Indeed with > his > assistance our internal issue is now closed. > > As Chair I asked the member (Ken Clements) to provide his analysis so I > could report his and my concerns to you as the upper authority > responsible > for the LMSC P&P, which is pasted below as well as attached. I AM INDEED > NOW > IN A QUANDARY as to the correct way to proceed within the current LMSC > policy if the analysis is CORRECT from Ken Clements. MY REQUEST TO YOU > DIRECTLY IS an immediate investigation by you as Chair along with other > EC > members if need be to clarify this highly potential problem. Please > advice. > > Respectfully, > > Stuart > > > +++++++++++ > > Subject: Problems with Our 802 LMSC and Working Group Rules > > To: Stuart J. Kerry, Chair IEEE 802.11 WG > > From: Ken Clements, member IEEE, IEEE 802.11 WG > > February 21, 2006 > > Dear Chairman Kerry, > > As per your request I have finished a first analysis of the impact of > the > existing 802 LMSC P&P rules on the operation of the next Working Group > Plenary in Denver, and have concluded that due to, apparently, > unintended > consequences of cumulated edits of the rules, it is not possible for the > WG > to conduct business as we have in the past. The biggest problem arises > from > the combined effect of subclauses 22.214.171.124 through 126.96.36.199.2, which taken > together, put an end to the use of our normal parliamentary procedure. > This > starts with: > 188.8.131.52 Chair's Function > The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues. The Working > Group > members and the Chair decide technical issues by vote. The Working Group > Chair decides what is procedural and what is technical. > > As can be seen, this subclause has the typical construction used in > separation of powers in which two operating entities are enumerated, > Chair > of the Working Group and Working Group members, and two areas of > authority/responsibility are enumerated, procedural issues and technical > issues, and one entity is given the authority/responsibility in one > area, > and the other entity in the other area. The Chair is also recognized as > part > of the body in the technical area, and then is given the further > authority/responsibility to decide what is in each area. > > Contrary to our common notion that our WG is chartered as a > parliamentary > body under Robert's Rules, we are, in fact, chartered as a group of > industry > experts working under a manager who has near total control of the > process. > Although part of rule 7.2.4 says, "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised > (latest edition) is the reference for parliamentary procedures", nowhere > does it charge the WG to use parliamentary procedure at all. > > Furthermore, the rules fail to define the terms 'procedural' and > 'technical' > with regard to subclause 184.108.40.206. We all have an idea that there is > something 'technological' about the standards we are writing, but > technical > could also be a legal technicality. Procedure is both what we are > doing, > and the parts of the standard that hold the technological references > together. Rule 220.127.116.11 says these terms are simply used by the Chair to > designate how an issue will be decided. There is no requirement that > the > Chair define them, or even use them the same way each time. > > Next we have the following: > 18.104.22.168 Voting > There are two types of votes in the Working Group. These are votes at > meetings and votes by letter ballot. > Here is enumerated exactly two kinds of votes; not one, or three, but > exactly two. Each of these two are then exactly specified in the next > two > subclauses to this subclause. Although the Chair is charged to decide > the > process, neither the Chair nor the body can make a new kind of vote. > Why > does this matter? Here is why: > 22.214.171.124.1 Voting at Meeting > A vote is carried by a 75% approval of those members voting "Approve" > and > "Do Not Approve". No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction > with > the Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is > established > well in advance. A quorum is required at other Working Group meetings. > The > Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. A quorum is at least one-half > of > the Working Group members. > Thus, all votes at meetings must pass by 75%. With no provision to make > a > new kind of vote, even the Chair cannot call for a simple majority vote > as > in the bulk of procedural motions listed in Robert's. Elsewhere the P&P > introduces some other special votes to reelect the Chair, remove the > Chair > and provide Directed Position as consistent with the 'in meeting vote' > type. > (note: It takes 75% to be elected Chair, but requires a one meeting > prior > notice, and then 75% to be reelected. Why does prior notice matter when > the > vote is just same?) > Let us think ahead to the opening Plenary of the WG to come in Denver. > The > usual procedure, after all the boiler plate, is to move to ratify the > agenda. How are you going to do this? Have someone make the motion and > then declare it 'procedural' and then decide it? Or are you going to > declare it 'technical' and see if we get 75%? You cannot call it > procedural > and then take a vote, because there is only one type of vote in meetings > (technical %75). You could call it procedural and then take a 'straw > poll' > instead of a vote, and then use your authority based on the poll. That > would work, but do you want to go through the whole meeting doing this > charade? > Then we come to the votes by letter ballot: > 126.96.36.199.2 Voting by Letter Ballots > > The decision to submit a draft standard or a revised standard to the > Sponsor > Ballot Group must be ratified by a letter ballot. Other matters may also > be > decided by a letter ballot at the discretion of the Working Group Chair. > The > Working Group Chair may vote in letter ballots. > The ballot shall contain three choices: > l . Approve. (May attach non-binding comments.) > l . Do Not Approve. (Must attach specific comments on what must be > done to the draft to change the vote to "Approve".) > l . Abstain. (Must include reasons for abstention.) > > To forward a draft standard or a revised standard to the Executive > Committee > for approval for Sponsor Ballot Group voting, a letter ballot (or > confirmation letter ballot) must be done first within the Working Group. > A > 75 percent approval of the Working Group confirmation letter ballot is > necessary with at least 50 percent of the members voting. The 75 percent > figure is computed only from the "Approve" and "Do Not Approve" votes. > Subsequent confirmation ballots to the Sponsor Ballot Group do not > require > Executive Committee approval. > The Working Group Chair determines if and how negative votes in an > otherwise > affirmative letter ballot are to be resolved. Normally, the Working > Group > meets to resolve the negatives or assigns the task to a ballot > resolution > group. > > There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation > process see subclause 188.8.131.52 Resolution of comments, objections, and > negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. > The letter ballot shall be conducted by electronic means. The response > time > shall be at least thirty days. However, for recirculation ballots, and > for > letter ballots not related to the submission of draft standards, the > response time shall be at least fifteen days. > Submission of a draft standard or a revised standard to the Executive > Committee must be accompanied by any outstanding negative votes and a > statement of why these unresolved negative votes could not be resolved. > > This language is very tight. There is a provision for the Chair to send > out > "other matters" to letter ballot, and a release for those to run for a > shorter time (if desired), however, no authorization for the WG body to > send > out letter ballots, and no release from the form with its requirements > for > comments on how to change the draft in case of "do not approve" votes. > So, > you could send out a letter ballot to set the location of the next > social, > but those who did not approve would have to tell how a nonexistent draft > could be changed so they would go for the social. Clearly, the strict > ballot form is intended for the end process vote to approve the draft > standard, but the language above is so tight, it covers everything. > Whereas > all votes in meeting require 75%, you can send out letter ballots on > "other > matters" that do not. > > The sections on voting to recall the Chair and voting to establish a > Directed Position have their own classic problem: > 184.108.40.206 Removal of Working Group Chairs or Vice Chairs > > The procedures specified in subclause 7.2.2 (WG Officers) are to be > followed > under normal circumstances. If a Working Group or TAG feels it is being > inappropriately led or significantly misrepresented by its Chair or a > Vice > Chair and is unable to resolve the issue internal to the Working Group > or > TAG, then it is the responsibility of that Working Group to make and > pass > (75% of voting members present required) a motion to that effect and so > notify the 802 Executive Committee with the recommended action and all > supporting rationale in written form. The process for removal of > committee > Chairs, Vice Chairs, and other officers is prescribed in the IEEE > Computer > Society, Standards Activities Board "SAB Policies and Procedures" > subclause > 220.127.116.11, Removal of Chairs and Vice Chairs, is included here with > relative > terminology (e.g., subsidiary committee) translated to LMSC terms (e.g., > Working Group). > The LMSC Executive Committee may remove the Chair or a Vice Chair of a > Working Group or TAG for cause. > The Chair of the LMSC Executive Committee shall give the individual > subject > to removal a minimum of thirty (30) days written mail notice, with proof > of > delivery, of a meeting of the LMSC Executive Committee at which the > removal > is to be decided. The individual subject to removal shall have the > opportunity to confront the evidence for removal, and to argue in his or > her > behalf. > In the clear and documented case of gross misconduct, the Chair of the > LMSC > Executive Committee may suspend the Chair of a Working Group, with the > concurrence of the IEEE Computer Society VP of Standards. A meeting or > teleconference of the LMSC Executive Committee shall be convened as soon > as > practical, but in no case later than thirty (30) days, to review the > suspension as provided for above. > > The classic problem is the wording: "then it is the responsibility of > that > Working Group to make and pass (75% of voting members present required) > a > motion to that effect." Here, the rules give the WG the responsibility, > but > not the authority. We do not have the authority to schedule or take the > vote, the Chair does. This is what happens in so many countries when > the > administration postpones votes they think they will loose. The WG has > no > procedural way to make the Chair call a question of no confidence. If > you > read the section on Directed Positions, it has the same problem. > > In conclusion I must report that from my analysis the 802 LMSC P&P rules > have made our traditional WG parliamentary operations not possible in > the > upcoming meeting. Although greater legal minds may find a way, I do not > know how this can be avoided though any action below the level of the > SEC, > and it may even require the SEC to ask the IEEE SA for a temporary > variance > from the SEC's own rules to fix this in time. > > Yours truly, > > Ken Clements > > +++++++++++ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Clements [mailto:Ken-Clements@ieee.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:02 PM > To: Stuart J. Kerry > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Bob O'Hara > (boohara) > Subject: Coming Impact of Rule Problems > > Dear Stuart, > > Thank you for your call yesterday. Yes, it is a fine kettle of fish. I > feel as though our WG is that cartoon character who has run off a cliff, > but > just keeps running until he/she/it looks down to see that there is no > ground > down there. We were going along fine, until we found that there are no > rules down there to support the way we have been going. > > As we discussed, I agree that fewer rules about WG operation from the > LMSC > would be better. They should have rules that set up the start of the > WG, > and then describe the final goal post (the letter ballot up to LMSC) and > then leave how we get there to Robert's and our own self-binding rules. > That is the way it is for them (the SEC), and should be the way it is > for > the Working Groups, and by the same recursion, the Task Groups. > > Per your assignment, I have attached a letter to you that contains the > results of my analysis. I hope this helps you get the SEC to fix this > stuff, because I see no way we can do it on our own, and nothing but a > WG > process disaster in Denver if they do not. > > -Ken > > But noble souls, through dust and heat, > Rise from disaster and defeat > The stronger. -- Longfellow > > +++++++++ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > ---- > From: Stuart J. Kerry [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:44 PM > To: 'email@example.com' > Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' > Subject: URGENT: RE: P&P Change Documents > Importance: High > > > Al, > > Further to my previous email attached below. Please confirm that you are > going to conference call Harry and I to discuss the P&P two documents on > Wednesday (tomorrow). It is a matter of high urgency, especially in > regards > to the emails that you are being copied on from, Ken Clements regarding > the > LMSC P&P. > > Please confirm our call. > > Thanks in advance, > > Stuart > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > ---- > From: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:23 PM > To: 'email@example.com' > Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org' > Subject: P&P Change Documents > Importance: High > > > > Al, > > I hope that you are feeling well or are on the mend now. > > It is imperative that we review the LMSC P&P changes that effect our > 802.11 > P&P in ONE complete document as I requested you to do. It is equally > important that we also look at the SECOND document I asked you to do > that > shows ONLY the new changes to our 802.11 P&P. > > Time is of the essence now, from the date of my first request on > January > 18th, as the meeting is fast approaching for our March 2006 session, > where > as you know the rules state that we are to address this at the OPENING > plenary meeting on Monday. > > Therefore, please could you provide this urgently so we can review BOTH > documents in plenty of time before our March 2006 session with Harry and > myself. I would suggest the review at the latest by Wednesday next week, > especially as Harry and I leave for the Athens Wi-Fi meeting at the > close of > that week, and will fly directly to Denver from there. > > With this plan, it should avoid any problems with any issues if you can > not > fly as ordered by your doctor, or to that fact any of us. > > Speak to you soon. > > Stuart > > > _______________________________ > > Stuart J. Kerry > Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG > > c/o: Philips Semiconductors, Inc. > 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ, > San Jose, CA 95131-1706, > United States of America. > > +1 (408) 474-7356 - Phone > +1 (408) 474-5343 - Fax > +1 (408) 348-3171 - Cell > eMail: email@example.com > Web: www.semiconductors.com > _______________________________ > > > > > > > From: Al Petrick [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:41 AM > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: 802.11 vs. LMSC rules > > Stuart/Harry > Reading through the LMSC rule changes we should propose a new set of > rule > changes for 802.11 at the March meeting and get them voted in July. > > I'm summering the chance for your review. > > -Al > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > -------- > > Al Petrick > > VP Marketing and Business Development > > Vice-Chairman IEEE 802.11WG > > 1333 Gateway Dr. Suite 1012 > > Melbourne, FL 32901 > > Phone: 321.725.1520 x204 > > Mobile: 407.810.3759 > > Fax: 321.725.1092 > > www.widefi.com > > > > Available from IEEE Press! > > IEEE 802.11 Handbook "A Designers Companion" > > 2nd Edition by O'Hara and Petrick > > ISBN 0-7381-4449-5 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---- > ---- > From: Al Petrick [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 4:31 PM > To: Worstell,Harry R (Harry); firstname.lastname@example.org; > email@example.com > Subject: RE: Summary of PP changes > > > I'll look at it and compare this evening. > Al > > -----Original Message----- > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Wed Jan 18 20:06:03 2006 > To: Al Petrick; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com > Subject: RE: Summary of PP changes > > Hi Al, > > Stuart needs you to urgently check our P&P against the latest > 802 P&P which I have attached. > > Harry > > ________________________________ > > From: Al Petrick [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wed 1/18/2006 12:18 PM > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Summary of PP changes > > > > Harry/Stuart > > > > Attached is a file I've been maintaining of "suggested" PP changes. > > > > -Al > > > > > ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.