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

Re: [802SEC] determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of new EC members



Paul -

Happy to move or second those motions as necessary.

Regards,
Tony

At 16:34 16/04/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>
>We have completed phases (1) and (2) of the 4 phase process outlined 
>in my 31MAR email below.  On to phase 3--conduct of a UC-EC email 
>ballots.  We'll start with the 3 unambiguous cases first:
>
>Motion 1: "To add James Gilb to the Unconflicted EC"
>Motion 2: "To add David Law to the Unconflicted EC"
>Motion 3: "To add Bruce Kraemer to the Unconflicted EC"
>
>I'll need a mover and a seconder for each of the above motions 
>before kicking off the UC-EC email ballots.
>
>The motion of Mark Klerer will be handled separately as I am not 
>exactly sure how to craft a motion that reflects his desire/concern 
>"I (Mark Klerer) have not asked to be classified as "Unconflicted". 
>I have instead asked to not be classified as 
>conflicted."  Recommendations from a mover/seconder on this item are welcome.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:36 PM
>Subject: determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of new EC members
>
>
>All,
>
>The criteria we shall use in classifying the new EC members as 
>Unconflicted or Conflicted regarding 802.20 decisions:
>a) The "perception of conflict" is a test for disclosure:  is the EC 
>member aware of a fact (about himself or someone else) that would 
>cause a reasonable person on the outside looking in to believe that 
>the member had an interest in the outcome or for whatever reason was 
>unable to decide in the best interest of the IEEE.
>b) The test for a determination of an "actual conflict" was whether 
>there was in fact an interest that could prevent someone from making 
>an unbiased decision.
>
>At this time, all 4 new EC members, James Gilb, David Law, Bruce 
>Kraemer and Mark Klerer, have asserted they should be classified as 
>Unconflicted.  Per the below email, step (1) is complete and step 
>(2) has begun.  Please use the next week to query each new EC member 
>regarding their classification assertion using this private email list.
>
>At the end of next week, I will ask for a members of the UC-EC to 
>make four motions (one per new EC member) "To add XXX to the 
>Unconflicted EC" that we will conduct via the EC reflector.  The 
>Unconflicted EC members qualified to cast a vote on these motions 
>are: John Hawkins, Buzz Rigsbee, Mike Lynch, Tony Jeffree, Bob 
>Heile, John Lemon (and Paul Nikolich if needed to break a tie.)
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 2:57 PM
>   Subject: determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of 
> new EC members
>
>
>   Dear Unconflicted EC members,
>
>   We need to classify our new EC members (James Gilb/SiBeam, David 
> Law/3Com, Bruce Kraemer/Marvell ;Mark Klerer/Qualcomm) into either 
> the unconflicted or conflicted category.  I should have done this 
> during the elections--it would have been much easier.
>
>   We will make the determination over the next few weeks using the 
> following process:
>
>   1) Each new member to send an email to this private EC list 
> declaring their opinion on whether or not they believe they are 
> conflicted by Friday 4APR 2008 or sooner.
>   2) Open 1 week discussion period via private EC list email among 
> EC members (tentatively ending Friday 11APR08.)
>   3) Conduct a public (via EC reflector) 10-day UC-EC Email ballot 
> to determine the classification of Gilb, Law, Kraemer and Klerer 
> (tentatively ending 21APR08.)
>   4) Done
>
>   Regards,
>
>   --Paul
>
>
>
>----------
>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.