Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights



John,
 
No - Does getting a second at a meeting start a ballot? It is a similar
process here.  Paul then has to either conduct the ballot or delegate
conducting the ballot to someone else. In the latter case, he may give
the delegate instructions on conducting the ballot such as duration and
whether the ballot can close after all the EC members have voted (an
option in our rules).
 
Then there will be an email that announces that the ballot has started -
see my email that started the ballot on allowing the PARs in July for an
example. By custom, the ballot announcement email usually has a subject
that starts +++ 802 EC Motion and its body will say when the ballot will
close and any other special conditions that apply to the ballot (e.g.
2/3 vote or UC-EC motion).
 
Regards,
Pat

________________________________

From: J Lemon [mailto:jlemon@ieee.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:53 PM
To: Pat Thaler
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights


Paul's asking for someone to second it doesn't start the vote once it
has been seconded?

On 6/25/2008 4:40 PM, Pat Thaler wrote: 

	It hasn't been announced that a vote is started yet. Paul has to
do that
	or delegate it to someone.
	
	Pat 
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
	[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
	Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:36 PM
	To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
	Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return
802.20 to
	individual voting rights
	
	I approve.
	
	John Lemon
	
	On 6/25/2008 4:10 PM, James Gilb wrote:
	  

		All
		
		As a reminder, the motion was:
		-------------
		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.
		--------------
		
		James Gilb
		
		Michael Lynch wrote:
		    

			Paul.
			
			I second it.
			
			Regards,
			
			Mike
			
			-----Original Message-----
			From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
<mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> 
			To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"
<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

			Sent: 6/25/08 13:56
			Subject: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion
to return 802.20 to 
			individual voting rights
			
			All,
			
			Can we please get someone to second this motion?
			
			The motion will be decided by the UC-EC, so
we'll need a UC-EC member
			      

	
	  

			to second it.  As a reminder, the UC-EC consists
of: voters: Gilb, 
			Lemon, Law, Lynch, Kraemer, Hawkins, Rigsbee,
Jeffree, Heile and 
			non-voters Thompson, Nikolich.
			
			Regards,
			
			--Paul
			
			----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Thaler"
			      

	<pthaler@BROADCOM.COM> <mailto:pthaler@BROADCOM.COM> 
	  

			To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
			Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:31 PM
			Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting 
			rights
			
			
			      

				James,
				
				I disagree regarding this statement:
				        

				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.
				          

				While the SA has defined rules for
entity voting, it isn't clear how
				        

	to
	  

				apply them to have one Working Group
with a mix of entity and 
				individual
				voting PARs. For example, there are
different membership
				        

	requirements
	  

				for a working group developing standards
under the entity method and
				under the individual method. Does a
Working Group with a mix of PARs
				have two voting lists - one entity and
one individual? If so, which
				        

	is
	  

				used for voting on items that aren't
tied to one of the PARs such as
				electing a chair or a directed position
regarding another group's
				        

	PAR?
	  

				There is also a difference in sponsor
operating procedures. For 
				sponsors
				developing individual standards, 5.1.1
of the SB-OM says they must
				        

	have
	  

				P & P and can use the model operating
procedures but then it goes on
				        

	to
	  

				say: "There are also operating
procedures available for Sponsors
				developing a standard using the entity
method of participation, and
				Sponsors shall utilize these procedures
as the basis for entity
				standardization." So there are different
(model) operating
				        

	procedures
	  

				for sponsors depending on whether they
are developing under the
				individual and entity method.
				
				Therefore, it is not clear that the
rules defined by the SA cover
				operation of a sponsor or a Working
Group developing PARs under both
				individual and entity methods at the
same time.  Because the
				        

	procedures
	  

				for an entity sponsor allow sponsor
voting to be by individuals, it
				might be possible to merge entity and
individual projects into an 
				single
				sponsor. Merging them into a single WG
presents more of a problem.
				
				Regards,
				Pat
				
				-----Original Message-----
				From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee
List *****
				[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of James Gilb
				Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
				To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
				Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return
802.20 to individual voting
				rights
				
				Wow, I am having some trouble typing
here.
				
				In the motion passed on July 16, 2007,
"shall e as" should have been
				"shall be as"
				
				Instead of:
				
				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.
				
				I meant to say:
				
				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, it can
				        

	decide
	  

				to do that by a vote of the Working
Group, subject to approval by
				        

	the
	  

				802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as
appropriate.
				
				I am looking for a second and/or
suggestions to help with the
				        

	wording.
	  

				James Gilb
				
				James Gilb wrote:
				        

				All
				
				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 was
				          

				approved:
				        

				"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.
				
				James Gilb
				
				PS: Thanks for the responses from
everyone that helped me to
				          

	clarify
	  

				the
				        

				history and status of 802.20.
				
				James Gilb wrote:
				          

				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.
				
				----------
				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.
	
	
	
	  


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