Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
I have my hands full with other stuff so I'm trying to stay out of this
fray, but we really should check if IEEE802 rules support entity voting.
As I understand things, the baseline Sponsor P&P (that we are now
modeled after) was set up specifically to support individual voting.
There are other model P&P within IEEE to support entity voting. While
AudCom is trying to combine them, the current baseline and our current
P&P were designed for individual balloting. We only do Entity balloting
as a special case (or when told to from on high...).
If you are going to allow 802.20 to continue entity balloting (I am
conflicted so I won't vote on this motion) I do recommend you consider
how that gels with our existing P&P.
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
I believe reverting 802.20 to individual voting rights without giving
the WG a chance to make their views known is premature - they may
feel that the existing voting regime is working for them and they
want to keep it that way. I suggest we leave it up to the WG to make
a request of the EC in July if that is what they want.
At 00:12 25/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
>Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).
>June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
>December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and
>returning all oversight to the EC.
>I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed session,
>July 16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following motion
>"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working
>group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with
>one vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as determined
>by the 802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their
>primary affiliation and other information available to the OC."
>It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
>(apparently mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in
>the IEEE SA web pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may
>require some clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the
>802.20 P&P and OM.
>It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity voting
>process, it used one based on voting blocs.
>If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
>voting or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
>The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original state and
>to allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of action,
>including, if they wish, to switch to entity voting.
>PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me to clarify
>the history and status of 802.20.
>James Gilb wrote:
>>I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine the
>>valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
>>On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
>>based on entity affiliation.
>>SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in December
>>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
>>requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is
>>approved by the SASB."
>>The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
>>Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the
>>beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be
>>determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
>>Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do not
>>explicitly deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example,
>>what constitutes an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various
>>individuals were grouped by the oversight committee into a single
>>If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting group, we
>>should take to the time to write the P&P to support this. In the
>>mean time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.
>>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.