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

All,

Jose asks ...

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.
As a member of the 802.20 OC investigating allegations of dominance (both positive and negative) we came to certain decisions and the net result was the suggestion that a form of block tallying was the best way forward for the WG to produce a consensus standard in a democratic manner. This decision was not taken lightly, nor was it taken without alot of consultation and debate with the 802 UC-EC, SASB and IEEE legal staff. Clearly, we decided to follow an exceptional process. I fully believe that everyone involved felt that as it was an exceptional process, a return to normal operation was warranted once that standard was approved.
I personally would like to think that the members of the working group and other individuals, companies or WGs with a material interest in the same product space would play nicely in the future and avoid the need to return to this kind of exceptional process state. I believe this behaviour tarnishes the reputation of 802, IEEE, and the individuals or companies involved. Therefore I'd like to think everyone will try to avoid it in the future. In all my years in 802, I was impressed with how the vast majority individuals, companies and WGs could in fact "get along" even when they had very very different ideas on technology, product space requirements etc.
I cannot promise that the dominance issues in the group are gone, but I do not believe that is a relevant issue for this decision.
Every WG chair has a responsibility to monitor their WG for dominance issues and bring them before the EC for corrective action. And should they fail in this duty, I'd expect members of the WG to complain first to their chair and finally come to the EC and complain if they cannot resolve the issue within their own WG. If the same shenanigans start in this or any WG, I think 802 has the experience to deal with it, and fear of it happening again shouldn't keep a WG in an exceptional state forever. Speaking from personal experience, keeping 802.20 in an exception state is a drain on 802 and IEEE resources and we should avoid this unless necessary.
IEEE and 802 have rules that (mostly) work, the crisis is over, lets return to the rules. 


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?
Finally, while its nice to ask the WG what it wants to do, I don't think the WG has a say in this. If the problems are gone, the WG will function normally. If the problems are not gone, Mr. Klerer and WG members have the tools needed to figure it out very quickly with the use of roll call votes.
Once again, as 802.20 has a standard, the conditions have changed and this motion is warranted, so nothing else needs to be done!
I believe Jose is correct in that the dissolution of the 802 UC-EC requires a motion, but I see this as orthogonal to the change in the WG operations. Dissolving the UC-EC does not cause the WG to return to normal operations nor vis-versa. However, I believe that it is also time for a motion to dissolve the UC-EC as part of the normal 802 EC business at the next plenary meeting. I trust I even know who will make that motion (since he has tried it many time before ... John :-) ) 

commenting from the cheap seats ...

mike
----- Original Message ----- From: "Puthenkulam, Jose P" <jose.p.puthenkulam@INTEL.COM> 
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:24 PM
Subject: 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. 



----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.