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

Re: [802SEC] UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm

Dear Mr. Nikolich and the other Members of the UC-EC,

I understand that the "Unconflicted Executive Committee" (UC-EC) is  
preparing to move the 802.20 draft to RevCom with ballot results that  
would fail to meet the minimum approval ratio without the  
introduction of "invalidation" of the votes of three or four blocs  
(depending on which backup materials are considered part of the  
motion; I can't tell). I would caution the UC-EC that this is a grave  
and highly unusual step that should not be undertaken without careful  
consideration. I think that any ballot group member whose vote is  
invalidated has a right to assume that each and every UC-EC member  
supporting that invalidation is prepared to justify such a decision  
based on the facts of the matter and the procedural requirements.

I have not reviewed all of the intended invalidations, but I would  
like to ask the UC-EC members supporting this motion to consider, for  
example, its decision to invalidate the expressed Disapprove vote of  
the "Siemens/Nokia-Siemens-Networks" voting bloc.

As identified in Recirc #2 Comment #20, Max Riegel, who was assigned  
to this voting bloc, voted Disapprove in Recirc #1 and submitted a  
comment in the original ballot. Treating the Siemens/NSN bloc vote as  
Disapprove, in accordance with the vote cast by Mr. Riegel, would  
have caused the Recirc #1 approval ratio to fall below the minimum  
approval level.

In Recirc #2, Mr. Riegel submitted additional comments. The UC-EC is  
proposing to invalidate these comments and then, furthermore,  
invalidate the Siemens/NSN vote as well. As its basis for  
invalidation of the vote, the UC-EC proposes to invoke SASB  
Operations Manual Subclause, which says 'During a  
recirculation ballot, balloting group members shall have an  
opportunity to change their previously cast ballots. If a change to  
"do not approve" is based solely on comments concerning previously  
approved portions of the balloted document, the balloter shall be  
informed that the comments are not based on the changed portion of  
the balloted document... If the balloter does not change the negative  
ballot, the ballot may be submitted to RevCom as an unresolved  
negative without comment."

So, is the invocation of justified? This depends on many  
factors, but I'd like to focus on one requirement: that the vote  
under discussion is a 'change to "do not approve'. Was Mr. Riegel's  
vote in Recirc #2 a change to Disapprove? The plain facts show that  
it was not. The evidence shows that Mr. Riegel voted Disapprove in  
Recirc #1. Therefore, his vote in Recirc #2 was not a change to  
Disapprove. For a straightforward mechanical illustration, those of  
you familiar with myBallot will be well aware that, when Mr. Riegel  
opened his Recirc #2 ballot, the select box indicating his vote would  
already read "Disapprove". Any "change" to his vote would have  
resulted in a vote other than "Disapprove".

Looking into the intent of the EC, I'll postulate on its possible  
explanation: that Mr. Riegel's vote in Recirc #1 was in fact  
invalidated and was not accepted by the UC-EC as a valid Disapprove.  
However, how could this have been done procedurally? I am aware of  
one method: the invocation of Subclause But Subclause states plainly that, in that case, "the balloter shall be  
informed." So, I'd like to ask the EC: was Mr. Riegel informed? I  
would venture to say that he was not. I say that for the following  
two reasons:

(1) I asked Mr. Riegel myself:

> From: Roger Marks []
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:46 PM
> Subject: 802.20 ballot
> Hi, Max.
> I have a question for you regarding the 802.20 Sponsor Ballot.
> Has the 802.20 Chair (or someone else from the WG) ever told you  
> that your vote was considered invalid?
> Thanks,
> Roger
> From:
> Subject: RE: 802.20 ballot
> Date: May 13, 2008 03:03:12 PM PDT
> Hi Roger,
> I did not got any feedback on how my vote was treated.
> Bye
> Max

(2) The information on how Mr. Riegel's Recirc #1 was treated was  
apparently held closely. For example, the ballot group was never  
provided with this information (and, to this day, has still not been  
informed). The ballot cover letter explicitly states the following:  
"Number of bloc voters voting disapprove without comments = 0". The  
ballot group was told, in unambiguous terms, that no votes were ruled  
"Disapprove without Comments".

So, given these facts, I suggest that Mr. Riegel was not informed  
that his Disapprove vote had been invalidated.

Now, I ask the UC-EC members to consider the following: given that it  
invoked without following the specific procedure required in, on what basis can the UC-EC assert that Mr. Riegel has ANY  
obligation regarding supporting comments in Recirc #2? Indeed, Mr.  
Riegel DID submit a Disapprove vote in Recirc #1, and he was never  
informed that his vote was considered any differently than he had  
Disapprove voter, he had no reason to assume that he had ANY  
obligation to provide comments. It appears that the UC-EC is now  
retroactively proposing to impose conditions on Mr. Riegel's Recirc  
#2 response without ever informing him of this requirement.

Given these facts, I can't see any legitimate basis for the UC-EC  
members to invalidate Mr. Riegel's Recirc #2 Disapprove vote and  
thereby disenfranchise one of the voting blocs. It also seems to me  
that UC-EC ought to also go back and carefully review the legitimacy  
of its earlier decision to invalidate that voting bloc's Recirc #1  

Given the extraordinary nature of the UC-EC's approach, I recommend  
that each UC-EC member supporting it be well prepared to articulate  
the detailed historical and procedural arguments required to justify  
each of the three of four radical judgments resulting in the  
disenfranchisement of a voting bloc. The voters are owed no less.


Roger B. Marks

On May 20, 2008, at 07:50 PM, Klerer, Mark wrote:

> UC-EC Members
> I have had a request to redistribute the previous (Recirculation 1)  
> ballot vote mapping for your reference.
> I am also including a draft of the cover that will go to Revcom to  
> explain the ballot results. It is basically a rearrangement of the  
> EC-UC cover note and includes the tally for all ballot cycles.
> Best regards,
> Mark Klerer
> Chair - IEEE 802.20
> Phone: 908-443-8092
> e-mail:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****  
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:29 PM
> Subject: UC-EC email ballot regarding forwarding 802.20 to RevComm
> 802 EC
> Paul Nikolich has delegated the running the following ballot to me.
> Motion: UC-EC approves forwarding 802.20 draft 4.1 to RevComm
> Mover: James Gilb
> Second: Bob Heile
> Start of ballot May 7, 2008
> End of ballot May 17, 2008 AOE (anywhere on earth)
> The resolution document are attached for you reference.
> James Gilb
> 802 Recording Secretary
> ----------

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