Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ Motion on all-802 Interims
I will also vote disapprove. In addition to the other comments which I
support, I find something even more objectionable - it creates a third
type of meeting (one that is not a plenary and not an interim) but we
have no rules for such a meeting.
Also, there are times due to ballot timing or other special needs that a
group needs another interim meeting location to further their work and
we shouldn't be making that onerous. If IEEE 802 sponsored interim sites
mean that WGs loose autonomy in selecting their interim time and place
or that IEEE 802 has excessive financial risk, than my preference would
be to no longer have IEEE 802 sponsored interims.
I am also offended by the tone of original message. That some groups are
choosing not to go to the London interim is not any surprise move. I
recall it being made clear from the time the January interim pricing was
first discussed that the some groups (.1 and .3) would find the price
excessive and not participate. Initial responses to that were that WGs
were encouraged but not required to attend. The decision was made to
have the interim in spite of that. Though I voted for the January
interim when negotiations reached a point where it seemed it would be
very messy for IEEE 802 to cancel it, I would not have voted for it if a
rule like this was in place. Since then, the unanimous vote on that last
ballot has been used to characterize us as all supporting the interim
which isn't the case (and reminds me of misleading campaign ads about
candidate voting records).
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC Email Ballot+++ Motion on all-802 Interims
I vote Disapprove on this motion, and would ask that the 802 Chair rule
it out of order for the reasons stated in Roger's response (this is
attempting to make P&P changes by a simple EC motion).
I can understand your frustration; however, at this point, we don't
operate in an autocracy in which the EC can ride roughshod over the
wishes of individual WGs.
At 21:25 03/10/2006, Bob Heile wrote:
>Dear EC Colleagues
>At our chairs meeting at the Interim in Melbourne, the topic of the
>January 2007 Interim came up and the lack of support it was getting
>from some groups. In attendance were Stuart Kerry, Mike Lynch, Steve
>Shellhammer, Vivek Gupta, Carl Stevenson and myself.
>We unanimously agreed that we wanted to put forward the following
>motion for EC email ballot to encourage participation. These sessions
>are financially risky enough without adding the unknown attendance
>factor. If this motion passes, it will not necessarily fix that
>problem, but it is nudge in the right direction. Paul requested that I
run the ballot.
>When the EC sponsors an all 802 Interim, that Interim shall be the only
>sanctioned Interim for that period. If a Working Group does not
>participate in the all 802 Interim and meets separately during that
>period, that Working Group's session can not be called an interim and
>can not be substituted for a Plenary for the purposes of gaining or
>maintaining voting rights.
>The ballot opens as of this email and closes 2359 AoE Friday October
>Bob Heile, Ph.D
>Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
>Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
>11 Louis Road
>Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
>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.