Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
Dear James,
As some how, one of my key questions has been ignored in the discussion,
I will try to re-iterate it again, with the hope that some clarification
will be provided. I'm addressing you, as you are the mover of the
motion.
There was some "cause" for which, the UC-EC proposed a modified method
of voting in 802.20 WG . Has the UC-EC or the full EC determined that
the circumstances in the group are different now for which the previous
action can be revoked.
So far, other than the motion being made, I've not seen a clear
articulation of the basis for why this motion is being made.
If this is motion is primarily with a view for dissolving the UC-EC, I
do not see any connection between that and this motion, other than the
fact that the UC-EC did make the original decision to change the voting
method in 802.20 WG.
I personally feel, Mark suggestions to have a straw poll or pose the
question to the 802.20 WG are good ones. Or else the 802 UC-EC or full
EC needs to clarify whether the conditions in the 802.20 WG have changed
to warrant this motion. Has this been done?
Thanks & best regards,
jose
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Puthenkulam, Jose P
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:20 AM
> To: 802 SEC
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> voting rights
>
> Dear James,
>
> I have a question on this motion.
>
> > On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20
> to be based
> > on entity affiliation.
>
> As per this point, I'm assuming there was some "cause" for
> which, this action was taken by the UC-EC. Has the UC-EC
> determined that the circumstances in the group are different
> now? For which the previous action can be revoked.
>
> Because from Dec 2007 (I guess the year is a typo in your
> email) SASB minutes it seems only the oversight
> responsibility was transferred to the 802 EC.
>
> Also the EC motion from Nov 2007 (I'm guessing this is
> another year typo) only requests the NC-EC to be dissolved,
> so can one draw the conclusion from that motion that the
> circumstances in the 802.20 WG has changed? Because even if
> the NC-EC is dissolved it only shifts the oversight
> responsibility to the full EC.
>
> My suggestion for this would be that the 802.20 WG pass a
> motion explicitly requesting this at the July plenary and
> then the EC take action. I would think this is a more orderly
> way of proceeding.
>
> Is it possible to know maybe, if the 802.20 WG has already
> requested this change? If they have, then this might be a non-issue.
>
> Thanks & best regards,
> jose
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> James Gilb
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 4:37 AM
> > To: 802 SEC
> > Subject: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> voting rights
> >
> > All
> >
> > I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine the
> > valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
> >
> > Rationale:
> >
> > 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
> > 2007.
> >
> > 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."
> >
> > The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
> >
> > 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
> > determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
> > superior rules.
> > --------------
> >
> > 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 entity vote.)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.