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

Re: [802SEC] +++10 Day Ballot+++Opens 07Marc Closes 17 March


I cannot approve this, yet.  I would like to see the following things
changed, before I cast my vote.

1. The first step of the process is worded as a recommendation, using
"should be".  This needs to be changed to a requirement, using "shall

2. There is a grammar error in the second sentence of the first step of
the procedure.  "In order for the request shall be considered" needs to
change to "In order for the request to be considered".

3. The second step of the procedure should be changed, so that the OC
only needs to forward something to the UCEC when a recommendation is
being made to change a bloc assignment.

4. The last sentence seems to make a commitment for the UCEC, i.e., to
make a decision before the tally is announced.  Will the announcement of
the tally and, perhaps, the start of the next ballot be delayed until
the UCEC makes decisions on all of the bloc change requests?

5. In the third step of the procedure, you have the sponsor contacting
the old and new voting blocs.  Is there an official representative of
each voting bloc?  If not, who is to be contacted?  Shouldn't this be
material required to be submitted by the individual requesting the bloc
change?  It would sure streamline the procedure and eliminate a lot of
work by the Sponsor.  This is particularly true if the individual is
changing from one bloc to another that opposes the position of the first
bloc.  In this case the first bloc may withhold information to delay the
individual's change.  It should be up to the individual to make the
requests and state the results.

6. In the fourth step of the procedure, you again make a commitment for
the UCEC.  This needs to be reworded along the lines of "The
announcement of the final vote tally will be delayed until a decision on
the bloc assignment change is made."  I am not too happy with this
ability of an individual to cause a delay in the sponsor process.  But
if this is what you desire, this change needs to be made to the

7. Step five of the procedure seems to contradict all the earlier steps
that say the tally will be delayed until a decision is made.  If it is
your desire to keep the sponsor process on schedule, then all the
previous statements about delaying the tally should be removed.  This
makes the process very ambiguous and appear to be subject to
manipulation by the Sponsor, the OC, the UCEC, the individual voters,
and both of the voting blocs.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:08 PM
> Subject: [802SEC] +++10 Day Ballot+++Opens 07Marc Closes 17 March
> Dear EC Members,
> The 802 Chair, Paul Nikolich, has delegated the conduct of the
> following motion via 802 EC email ballot to me, Arnie Greenspan.
> Moved: The Unconflicted 802 EC members approve the attached
> Procedure, to be used in the event there is a request for a change to
> an individuals block assignment during the 802.20 Sponsor ballot.
> Opens: 07 MAR 2008; Closes 17 MAR2008
> Mover: Arnie Greenspan
> Seconder: Buzz Rigsbee
> Unconflicted EC (UC EC) members regarding 802.20 WG matters are
> eligible to cast a ballot on this issue.
> UC EC Voters:
> ----------------
> CH Paul Nikolich
> ES Buzz Rigsbee
> RS Bob O'Hara
> TR John Hawkins
> 01 Tony Jeffree
> 15 Bob Heile
> 17 John  Lemon
> 18 Mike Lynch
> 20 Arnie Greenspan
> ME Geoff Thompson       non-voting
> EC members not eligible to vote:
> --------------------------------
> V1 Mat Sherman
> V2 Pat Thaler
> 03 Bob Grow
> 11 Stuart Kerry
> 16 Roger Marks
> 19 Steve Shellhammer
> 21 Vivek Gupta
> 22 Carl Stevenson
> ----------
> 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.