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

Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - 802.15 results

A similar motion regarding my status for re-election passed in 802.15 by 
65/1/1 on Monday afternoon.  The one no voter had issues with the P&P not 
me personally.

Bob H.

At 08:47 AM 11/14/2007 -0500, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>FYI: Here is the result of a motion at the 802.16 Working Group
>Opening Plenary on Monday afternoon:
>Motion: "Per the third paragraph of section 7.2.2 of the IEEE 802
>Policies and Procedures, to authorize and allow Roger Marks to run
>for re-election as Chair of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group in the
>election of March 2008."
>Motion by: Phil Barber
>Second by: Carl Eklund
>Passed by 171/0/1
>On Nov 11, 2007, at 03:31 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>Good point.
>>We should stipulate that it has to be a vote by count.
>>For my case, (without regard to whether or not I can vote in the
>>EC) I would not support the continuation of a chair who brought in
>>a vote by acclamation in alleged satisfaction of this criteria.
>>At 05:20 AM 11/11/2007 , Bob Heile wrote:
>>>Just out of curiosity, where does a vote by acclimation (or would
>>>it be unanimous consent in this case) fit into the scheme of things?
>>>At 02:32 PM 11/10/2007 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>>I agree with Tony that the language needs to be tightened up.
>>>>While I hesitate to have "special" voting rules instead of just
>>>>referring to one of our existing procedures, I believe there is a
>>>>fatal flaw in what Tony has proposed.
>>>>Our original intention was to have term limits be the default
>>>>situation. The 75% vote was intended to allow things to be
>>>>overridden by a highly affirmative action (a principle which I
>>>>support). I believe Tony's proposal waters that down
>>>>significantly in its current proposed form.
>>>>The problem of 75% of Y/(Y+N) is that those not voting are weight
>>>>in the affirmative. In this particular case (a) the bias is in
>>>>the opposite of our alleged default and (b) it takes a lot of
>>>>courage to stick your hand up to say you hate the current chair
>>>>(hard enough to brash American, effectively impossible for some
>>>>other cultures).
>>>>Therefore, I propose that the method of vote should be (from
>>>>Tony's list below):
>>>> >       - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>>>I acknowledge that does not solve the problem completely, voters
>>>>can still abstain by leaving the room. This could be solved
>>>>(perhaps) by instead using:
>>>> >       - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the
>>>>room or not).
>>>>There is a problem with too though. Many (most?) WGs don't have
>>>>anything near 100% of the voting members show up at a plenary.
>>>>This effectively raises the bar significantly (too far in my
>>>>opinion). We could use 50% of the voting membership on a vote
>>>>taken at the plenary but that has a potential unevenness problem
>>>>between WGs.
>>>>Therefore, my choice remains:
>>>> >       - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>>>Appropriate fruit for discussion during a P&P meeting
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>At 05:34 AM 11/8/2007 , Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>>Following the interesting discussion on the email exploder on
>>>>this topic, I decided to take a shot at hacking the P&P text into
>>>>something rather more watertight and hopefully rather closer to
>>>>what we intended to say in the first place. As with all of these
>>>>things, the closer you look at the existing text the more
>>>>problems come out of the woodwork. So in addition to the initial
>>>>problem of interpreting the number of years vs number of terms of
>>>>office ambiguity, I came across the following problems:
>>>>1) Although the existing text specifies when terms of office come
>>>>to an end, it only indirectly specifies what happens next.
>>>>2) The wording around the 10-year rule is sufficiently ambiguous
>>>>that it could be interpreted as requiring someone that has spent
>>>>10 years as Vice Chair to undergo the 75% vote before standing
>>>>for Chair (and vice versa). I know Bob Grow disagrees with me on
>>>>this interpretation, but suffice it to say that if I wrote
>>>>something similar in a draft standard I would expect to get
>>>>comments requiring the ambiguity to be removed.
>>>>3) The text doesn't make it clear what question the WG should
>>>>vote on in cases where the 75% approval is required. I.e., it
>>>>says that something needs to be approved by 75%, but not what
>>>>that something is.
>>>>4) (this is probably the worst of the lot, and in my view, makes
>>>>it essential that we have a clear interpretation next week) The
>>>>wording around the 75% vote does not specify what "a 75% vote of
>>>>the WG" means. Hence, it is open to at least the following
>>>>interpretations, some of which might be terribly difficult to
>>>>- 75% of the people in the room (members and observers).
>>>>- 75% of the participants in the WG (voting members and
>>>>observers, whether in the room or not).
>>>>- 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or
>>>>- 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>>>- Same as a technical vote (75% of those voting members voting
>>>>Approve and Disapprove).
>>>>- Impossible to determine, as a WG is a single entity, so a 75%
>>>>of it isn't a meaningful concept.
>>>>- Some other interpretation that I haven't thought of.
>>>>I have attached a marked-up version of the relevant sections that
>>>>I believe fixes the problems that I have identified. My intention
>>>>would be to use this as the basis for a rules change ballot.
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This 
>list is maintained by Listserv.

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
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832

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