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

Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights


1. The rationale around the motion is misleading.  This motion is
primarily possible because the SASB returned oversight responsibility to
the UC-EC in December 2007, where the guidelines for tallying the
P802.20 ballot were given in a separate motion.  Prior to that action,
many actions also required approval of the SASB Oversight Committee.  

Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
Committee with an offer of continuing support for situations where the
802 EC wishes to seek our help."

The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from November 2006
requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is
approved by the SASB."

2. Under its oversight responsibility, I personally believe the motion
is possible (but remember I'm conflicted on 802.20).  Would it be better
to have the 802.20 WG involved in such a decision?  Mark could certainly
inform the EC if there is already a position from the 802.20 WG on the
action you raise.  I did get limited input from 802.20 participants at
the June SASB series indicating a desire to keep the same voting method.
(If it ain't broke don't fix it.)  I have no personal knowledge if there
is a consensus position from the WG, even though I've been told that
voting statistics don't show any significant difference now between
entity bloc tallies and individual tallies of votes, the WG might wish
to discuss this rather than have one more thing dictated to them.  Were
I still on the EC, I would want to know the will of the WG.

3.  Also, determining membership status only by the LMSC P&P, leaves out
additional requirements in the 802.20 P&P as well as requirements in
IEEE-SA documents that would also apply being superior to the LMSC P&P
(e.g., declaration of affiliation requirements to gain attendance credit
not in the LMSC P&P).  "voting rights shall be determined on historical
attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and superior rules."

4.  Voting such a motion by the UC-EC would certainly be the
conservative approach, but I believe it is presumptuous to usurp the
LMSC Chair's responsibility for such rulings.

5.  Tony, per the above quotes, a request to the SASB was made, but no
specific decision was made on the EC request on which I assume you are
basing your statement that there is no UC-EC.  If no one's status has
changed since March, the 802.20 specific UC-EC continues to exist, it is
only change in membership or member status on conflicts that invalidates
the determination of perceived conflict.  So, I believe the UC-EC
continues to exist independent of any requirement or wisdom in voting
matters by UC-EC members.


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting

I was under the impression that the UC-EC turned into a pumpkin once 
the 802.20 standard was approved, in which case, it isn't able to 
make further decisions. So this should be a motion of the (regular) EC.

Or am I wrong?


At 03:25 19/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
>I propose to make the following motion for EC email ballot.  Please 
>respond with any comments that you think will improve the motion.
>On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be 
>based on entity affiliation.  In June 2008, 802.20's first standard 
>was approved by the IEEE SA.
>Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the 
>beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be 
>calculated based on individual attendance records according to the 
>802 LMSC policies and procedures.
>Because the original decision was from the UC-EC, it is my 
>understanding that this will be a UC-EC ballot.
>James Gilb
>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.