Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
I'm not sure exactly what yoiu should change in your motion to take Grow's
comments into account, but I do think they are valid. The WG should provide
input to their chair, who can argue on their behalf. I think that should be
sufficient. Or WG members comments can be solicited during the decision
The decision is limited to the UC-EC, but any EC member can participate in
Tony--as Grow points out, the UC-EC still exists. The UC-EC will have to
explicitly decide to dissolve itself, but first we need to resolve the
question regarding the operation of the WG.
James--please re-craft the motion and solicit a second. I'd like to have
this decided well before the start of the plenary session.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:40 AM
Subject: 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
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> 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.
>>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.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.