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

Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22 January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++


Sorry I'm a little slow on the draw here, but I want to bring some
things to your attention.

First please note the following from the posted P&P:

-------------------------------------- Electronic Balloting

The LMSC Chair, or an EC member designated by the Chair (usually a Vice
Chair), shall determine the duration of the ballot, issue the ballot by
e-mail and tally the votes after the ballot is closed. EC voting members
shall return their vote and comments by e-mail.

So I believe the correct process is to request an electronic ballot of
the chair before starting it.  It's hard to tell from the draft minutes,
but while Paul suggested having an e-mail ballot, I'm not sure he
formally authorized you to run it.  Regardless as acting chair I hearby
authorize you to initiate and run this ballot.

Second, I believe at the closing EC meeting in November we had a
parliamentary inquiry as to whether this motion (or one similar to it)
was allowable.  I believe the decision was yes, but it should have the
same threshold of approval as a P&P revision. (Bob O'Hara - please
indicate if you concur as I believe you made these statements). 

Approval of a P&P revision (section of the P&P) 'shall require
the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members with
voting rights (regardless of whether they are present).'  This is
different than the normal threshold for an electronic ballot.

According I rule as acting chair (unless Bob O'Hara indicates I'm
remembering things incorrectly) that this ballot will require the same
approval threshold as a P&P revision.  Mike, please account for this in
your book keeping.

Third, it gets really confusing with electronic ballot if you try
changing the text of the ballot during the ballot.  I will not allow the
text of the motion we are balloting to be modified during the ballot.  I
suggest you withdraw the ballot, and request comment from the EC.  When
you feel you have the text right, please request another ballot, and I'd
be happy to authorize it.  Formally if you have a motion on the floor it
takes a ballot to modify the text of the motion and I don't think we
want to go through that pain in an electronic ballot.

Finally (having gotten all the procedural stuff out of the way) I'll
state that while I don't intend to vote on this ballot, I feel it would
be far more effective at this point if you just bring forward a P&P
revision in March.  If you must do this for just the IMT stuff (I
personally question the value) then I recommend you narrow the scope of
the motion to just that one issue.  Otherwise, let's bring forward a P&P
revision and do it right the first time.  I think this motion will
ultimately cause more pain than pleasure!



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Senior Member Technical Staff 
BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES) 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 



-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of Michael Lynch
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++10 Day EC Email Ballot (Closes no later than 22
January 2007)+++Motion regarding IEEE 802 reciprocal voting rights+++

Dear EC members,

During the November Plenary meeting I presented to the EC a motion on
reciprocal voting rights. There was discussion of the motion and some
edits were suggested. It was decided that there should be further work
on the motion. That motion, now modified, is being submitted here for EC

During the revision to the original motion it was considered that those
with reciprocal voting rights would not be considered in determining
quorums. After discussion that was dropped since it seemed to create a
new class of voters.

Next week's Joint Interim meeting will provide an opportunity for some
of the EC to have face-to-face discussions of this motion and of course
we can discuss it here. Next Tuesday evening will be the RR-TAG hosted
meeting to determine if IEEE 802 will submit an input to ITU-R WP8F on
IMT requirements. It is possible that IMT requirements may be the first
of several IEEE 802 inputs to WP8F. If the work method involves
developing the response(s) within individual TGs and bringing those
results to the RR-TAG then having reciprocal voting rights should prove
useful to that work.

Motion: Moved by Mike Lynch, seconded by Steve Shellhammer

The text of the motion is attached.

Informative: This document informs ITU-R WP8F of a new project being
started in IEEE.

This ballot opens at midnight CT Friday 12 January and closes at 11:59
p.m. CT Monday 22 January 2007.



+1 972 814 4901 Mobile


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.