Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Paul,
I was told by someone, I thought it was you, that we were not allowed to
dissolve ourselves, but had to request the SASB to dissolve us. In other
words, we don't have the authority to cease our existence. Is this
correct? If so, shouldn't the motion be to the SASB to ask them to end
our existence and to end all the special rules for 802.20?
If my memory is faulty, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, and I'd
be quite happy to end the UC-EC ASAP. But I want to make sure that we're
allowed to do what is being proposed.
jl
On 6/20/2008 1:30 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> James,
>
> 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 period.
>
> The decision is limited to the UC-EC, but any EC member can
> participate in the discussion.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> --Paul
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@INTEL.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
>
>
>> James:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --Bob
>>
>> -----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
>> rights
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tony
>>
>> At 03:25 19/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
>>> All
>>>
>>> I propose to make the following motion for EC email ballot. Please
>>> respond with any comments that you think will improve the motion.
>>>
>>> Background
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Motion
>>> --------------
>>> 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.