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

Re: [802SEC] Rome decison

G'day Andrew -

While in general agreeing with your comments about the inherent 
conflict that may exist in a WG Chair's responsibilities, I would 
suggest that this particular situation is not representative of the 
norm. We (the EC) agreed to conduct a poll, we reviewed the questions 
that poll would ask, and we conducted the poll. I believe that there 
was a reasonable expectation on the part of those responding to the 
poll that this exercise would be more than just collecting one more 
data point to add to the pile. And if the vote had been really close 
- maybe a few percentage points either way - then sure, the EC should 
have weighed the result along with other factors, and come to a 
decision. However, with such clear-cut direction from its membership, 
I believe the poll results carry far more weight than other considerations.

I would also question whether the poll results directly represent 
which WGs would/would not have passed a directed position motion. It 
is quite possible that members that voted one way in the poll would 
then vote another way on a directed position - maybe on the basis 
that if the Chair asked for clear direction, individuals feel that 
the guidance to the Chair should reflect the majority view of the WG 
regardless of their personal preference; maybe on the basis that 
further information became available between the two votes. The only 
way to find out for sure is to run the motion, not to speculate on 
the basis of some other vote.


At 02:29 22/11/2007, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
>G'day Dave,
>On the issue of Rome vs Vancouver I have mixed feelings.
>* On one hand, I would like to see more non North American meetings to
>help demonstrate to other organisations, including many/most National
>Bodies within ISO/IEC JTC1, that the IEEE 802 WG's are attempting to be
>more internationally inclusive than they are currently perceived to be.
>* On the other hand, I recognise that the proposed location in Rome has
>many negative factors, such as cost and the remoteness of the site from
>the centre of Rome.
>However, that is not the topic of this e-mail. Rather, I feel compelled
>to point out a misrepresentation of generally accepted governance
>principles and the responsibilities of the 802 LMSC EC.
>Your e-mail strongly suggests that WG Chairs must vote according to the
>will of their WG, as determined by the survey in this case.
>In fact, under the P&P the WG Chairs have two responsibilities:
>* "act in the best interest of the LMSC as a whole"
>* "represent their Working Group on the Executive Committee"
>The P&P notes that "these responsibilities are in conflict with each
>In the normal case, the WG Chairs have the authority to make their own
>judgements in resolving any conflict. On this issue, I suspect the WG
>chairs took into account a whole range of factors in determining the
>"best interest of the LMSC as a whole", including the survey and the
>unattractiveness of the Rome location, but weighted the need to be
>perceived to be "international" more highly.
>There is a way under the P&P for a WG to remove the WG Chair's authority
>to make a judgement in "best interest of the LMSC as a whole". This
>requires the WG to approve a "directed position" with a 75% majority.
>However, interestingly, if one considers the survey to be a vote on a
>directed position, only the 802.1 and 802.20 WG Chairs would have been
>"directed" to vote for Vancouver over Rome.
>The membership of the WGs do not have to agree with their WG Chair's
>decision, but they do have to respect the WG Chair's right to make
>difficult decisions in the "best interest of the LMSC as a whole" when
>not "directed", particularly as it was the WG who gave the Chair the
>authority to make such difficult judgements by electing him/her as the
>WG Chair.
>If you do not think a WG Chair displays good judgement then support an
>alternate candidate at the next election or stand yourself. However,
>please do not make threatening comments related to fiduciary
>responsibility and insurance that have no supporting factual basis.
>BTW I don't know how Stuart Kerry voted on this particular issue, but I
>am sure he did so in a thoughtful and well considered manner that took
>account of many conflicting factors. I would hope he does the same in
>the motion to rescind the decsion to choose Rome that is likely to occur
>in the EC
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
>Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:59 AM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>I find I rather agree with the sentiments Tony expresses below.
>The EC asked, the membership answered, now the EC actions should reflect
>the membership's stated desire.
>The survey results were pretty clear. From the posted survey results:
>Only one group (.17) voted to pick Rome over Vancouver - and that vote
>as 4,1. .17 represents 5 people out of the total of 552 that
>participated in answering that survey question.
>Only one group (.19) tied - where the vote was 1,1 - that's another 2
>people out of the 552 total.
>As did the overall count of 362, 185 for a 66% vote in favor of
>Vancouver - or pretty close to a 2:1 ratio.
>I don't see how the data could be much more clear.
>Learning from this email thread that one or more EC members argued that
>the survey was flawed simply sounds to me like an excuse for those EC
>members to argue for the result which they had already pre-decided they
>wanted. It may have been "flawed"... (I have no objective way to measure
>In any case it is what it was. The EC crafted it and ran it. If it is
>"Flawed" it is so because the EC made it so. Maybe the EC will get
>at surveys in the future.
>For now, all the available data clearly says Vancouver 2:1 over Rome.
>I believe a good argument could be made that the EC members have a
>fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and the members of the
>organization have pretty clearly said what they prefer. Before the EC
>does otherwise, EC members may want to consider that lack of Directors &
>Officers insurance situation again. That's not a threat, rather an
>attempt to get people to seriously consider the potential consequences
>of their actions.
>I also infer from this situation that there are EC members that had/have
>little or no intention of representing their membership's desires. My
>personal opinion is that if you argued against doing what your group
>voted for, you should be seriously considering resigning. If you don't
>resign, I hope your group rectifies the situation by remembering this
>for you in March elections.
>Note that I was not at the Friday Plenary, so I have no idea who the
>prior statement may offend/anger - and it doesn't matter. I feel just as
>strongly about elected officers representing their membership as those
>that want Rome "as a symbol of nNA, no matter what" apparently feel
>about the March 2009 venue issue.
>I also realize that the way "it sounds to me" may not be the way the
>person or persons making the argument intended it -  and that does not
>change how it appears - at least to this member.
>The act of asking the membership what it wants to do, and then
>attempting to find a way to ignore the response is, well, deplorable.
>People do watch the EC actions. A primary purpose of this email is to
>remind the EC that others do watch what goes on.
>I've attached the survey results and cc'd this email to the WG I spend
>the most time participating in (.11). Seems to me 802 needs more light
>shone under this particular rock.
>I'm hoping (but don't in fact know one way or the other) that the .11
>chair argued for the position expressed by the .11 WG and the overall
>802 membership.
>David Bagby
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:28 AM
>To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>Carl -
>I guess where we differ is in how we choose to go forward from here.
>The EC chose to say "The survey was flawed, so we will ignore its
>results and go to Rome anyway". I didn't agree with that position, and
>voted accordingly. Unfortunately, my viewpoint didn't prevail.
>To me, it was our responsibility to make sure the right questions were
>asked in the survey. We failed to do that, for whatever reasons, despite
>ample opportunity to do so. Shame on us all. However, having asked the
>wrong question, I believe we were stuck with the answer we were given by
>the 802 membership. To then ignore the survey results seems to me to be
>arrogance in the extreme. The fact that the EC didn't like the answer
>the survey gave isn't sufficient justification for going against it
>IMHO. Just because it fits in with our desire to do NNA meetings doesn't
>make it the right choice.
>As it happens, and for the reasons pointed out by Pat, I think that
>particular Rome venue is a lousy choice anyway, regardless of the price
>issue, and particularly so when compared with Vancouver as an
>At 13:47 21/11/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> >I think you got my point ...
> >
> >If one can book prices in the >=~200/night range now, why in the heck
> >are we being quoted $425-450 (since we pay separately for meeting space
> >and F&B)???
> >
> >This major disconnect is why I believe that the "survey" was flawed (at
> >best) and the results skewed to the point of being worthless.
>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.

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