Re: [802SEC] [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] Rome decison
Andrew,
You said in your email:
> On the issue of Rome vs. Vancouver I have mixed feelings.
>
Re having mixed feelings re the specific venue choices; Me too.
However, neither my personal opinions about the specific venue choices nor
my opinions re the nNa issue were the subject of my email. I did NOT provide
my personal opinions about the nNA issue in my email - as they are not
relevant to the topic I addressed.
I'm seeing at least three topics being discussed within the email threads:
1) The desirability (or lack thereof) to have more nNA meetings.
2) The reasons for preferring one of the two specific venue choices for
March 2009 of Rome and Vancouver.
3) Concerns over the action of the EC after explicitly asking the membership
what it wanted for the March 2009 venue.
I only addressed the third of these topics.
Later you said:
> Rather, I feel
> compelled to point out a misrepresentation of generally
> accepted governance principles and the responsibilities of
> the 802 LMSC EC.
I do not believe that I misrepresented any generally accepted governance
principles or responsibilities.
I respectfully suggest that you go back and read my email a bit more
carefully.
I point you specifically to the wording of the email. I expressed my
opinions of the situation. I went to some effort to make that explicit via
the wording used. Note the language used for many sentences: e.g. "I
believe...", "It is my opinion..." etc.
Whether my opinions re what Chairs **should do** match what you choose to
quote as governance rules is not the point.
(It does seem to me that my opinion as to how a chair should behave does not
match yours)
Further, I think that your characterizing my statements as
"misrepresentation" is inaccurate.
I suspect we also have a significant difference of opinion as to what is
"generally accepted" and a difference over what the responsibilities of the
EC members are.
In your email you went on to say:
> However, please do not make threatening comments
> related to fiduciary responsibility and insurance that have
> no supporting factual basis.
>
I'll again suggest that you re-read. I explicitly wrote "That's not a
threat, rather an attempt to get people to seriously consider the potential
consequences of their actions."
I infer that somehow you either missed or did not understand the explicit
phrase "That's not a threat...".
I do think that a pretty reasonable case could be made that the EC does have
a fiduciary responsibility to the 802 organization. I'd find it rather
interesting to hear an EC member take the position that they do not have any
such responsibility (for example: let us hope it's not a treasurer that
chooses to take that position!)
It is a fact that the IEEE does not provide EC members with D&O insurance
coverage. This was confirmed to me personally as recently as the meeting in
Atlanta. Further, I have concern that situations like the current one may
expose members of the EC to personal liability issues. I pointed out that
they might want to consider that as part of this situation. I still think
giving that aspect consideration is a good idea.
I do feel strongly that WG chairs should represent the will of their groups.
You apparently do not share that viewpoint.
I infer from your text that you think that they WG chairs should do whatever
they want, unless a WG forces them via a directed position. Even when (as in
this case), they know before the decision vote, from hard data that they
requested, that the body prefers one specific choice 2:1 over the other.
Assuming I have understood your position accurately, I very strongly
disagree with your position on this.
Exercising judgment re routine matters is one thing.
Explicitly seeking the will of the body, regarding a question which has been
a controversy within the EC for literally multiple months, getting a 2:1
preference as an answer to the question, and then voting to pick the choice
that only 33% of the body said they prefer is very, very different.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE stds-802-11 List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:48 PM
> To: STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802-11WG] FW: [802SEC] Rome decison
>
>
> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group
> Reflector ---<P>
>
>
> 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 other".
>
> 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.
>
> Andrew
>
> 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
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>
> Folks,
> 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.
>
> ALL THE REST OF THE GROUPS VOTED FOR VANCOUVER OVER ROME.
> 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
> "flawed-ness"). 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 "better" 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.
>
> Dave
>
> ____________
>
> David Bagby
>
> email: David.bagby@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 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 alternative.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> 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.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________
> ___
>
> IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT
> send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this
> valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
>
> SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> Point your Browser to -
> http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and
> then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you
> require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
>
> Further information can be found at:
> http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________
> ___
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
>
> IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT
> send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this
> valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
>
> SELF SERVICE OPTION:
> Point your Browser to -
> http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and
> then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you
> require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
>
> Further information can be found at:
> http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________________
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.