Re: [802SEC] FW: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L Funding
John
I would like to point out that the March 2010 meeting is already part of
the financial commitment that each member of EC (or their supervisor)
made in March of 2008. For some, such as yourself, the commitment was
renewed when your affiliation was changed. Thus, I think the discussion
should concern the July 2010 meeting and going forward.
I think we should begin with two actions:
1) Set out a call for a volunteer for Executive Secretary. The position
is in our rules and needs to be filled. If there is to be a plan for
transition, we should start it now.
2) Discuss the possibility and policies to either a) fund a contractor
to handle site negotiations or b) cover expenses of a volunteer in order
to increase the chance to find someone who is competent and is willing
to dedicate the time to this. We should close on this at the March 2010
meeting.
For 2a) we would need to start a competitive bid process to award the
contract.
For 2b), we could, for example, adopt the IEEE travel policies regarding
reasonable expenses and perhaps ask someone from IEEE staff to approve
the expenditures (so that we are not involved). We would then need to
adopt a policy of when 802 would consider paying expenses. My opinion
on this option is that I would like to have a 3rd party handle this so
that there is no problems among EC members and there are no conflicts of
interest.
James Gilb
John Hawkins wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Thanks for the good points being made by all (and I see David's email
> came in just as I'm typing this). I appreciate the constructive and
> helpful tone that has been set (and would expect no less from this
> group).
>
> I suspect more votes might "flip" given some of the points being made,
> so let me attempt to suggest a way forward.
>
> First, I'll see if I can synthesize the major points:
>
> 1. On balloting by email: I agree that the mechanics are
> less-than-satisfactory. Voting on the motion, discussing the merits of
> the motion, proposing amendments to the motion, flipping votes on the
> motion, all go on simultaneously which leads to no lack of confusion.
> Perhaps we can change that in the future, but it is what it is, and I
> don't propose we change that just now.
>
> 2. On making decisions that haven't been socialized with or endorsed
> by the WGs: I can see the point, BUT do keep in mind, we are an
> executive body that is here to make executive decisions. Sometimes the
> matter is time-sensitive, or is just not of major import to the WGs.
> Just as in corporate governance, shareholders have the right to direct
> the board of directors to a given position and ultimately to replace
> them should they find themselves not being represented adequately. But
> that doesn't mean the board polls the shareholders on every issue that
> comes up.
>
> 3. On changing our "ongoing practices" without endorsement of the WGs:
> I couldn't agree more. Hence trying to make sure this requires annual
> approval by the EC.
>
> 4. On "conflict of interest": I'm not sure I follow the entire
> argument just yet. Furthermore, not sure how outsourcing or dividing
> the function changes the basic facts in that regard. But I agree, this
> is best left to a live discussion. Again, my apologies for leaving
> this off the November agenda. I expect the same won't happen in March
> (i.e. don't book that early flight home :-).
>
> 5. On the issue of precedent: David points out correctly that the
> motion on Arnie's arrangement included the "without precedent"
> language. I left it out of this one because I didn't see what it
> accomplished. Perhaps I do now given the current discussion. I'm happy
> to re-include it if it helps. But note I'm not arguing we
> must/should/can do this because we've done it before. I'm just saying
> it's a similar situation: we're in a similar bind, and this approach
> relieves the pain point. That's all.
>
> 6. On being mandated by SA to spend money: Simply not the case here.
> Whether it was before or not may be relevant to the precedent question
> above, but is not the case here.
>
> 7. On the impropriety of retroactive payments: I apologize again for
> overlooking this in November. I've spoken with Buzz, and he has agreed
> to forgo that reimbursement request.
>
> 8. On the basic fairness of only reimbursing select EC members'
> expenses: Again, I can see the point, but in my mind this is a
> temporary supply and demand question. At this specific point in time,
> we have a specific demand that Buzz can readily fulfill, given a
> little (and I mean a little) financial support. I'm not saying any EC
> member is replaceable, but I have a hunch that the set of people
> willing to volunteer to run a WG is larger than the set of people
> willing to *volunteer* to be Exec Sec. For most people this is simply
> a matter of being able to deliver more value to the standards process
> and to their sponsors as a WG chair than as Exec Sec. So we have a
> significant demand, and a small supply. Furthermore, this is a
> temporary problem which we are saying needs to be addressed long term
> (some of you have suggested a few approaches). As I see it, this is
> the path of least resistance just now. Consider the cost of even a
> single "botched" meeting. We've come close before, but a talented and
> well connected Exec Sec was pulled our stuff out of the proverbial
> fire. Throwing this function to the first willing person that comes
> along could lead to a very costly learning curve.
>
> 9. On there being better ways to accomplish this: I'm very glad to
> hear that, as I've been struggling with it for some time. Let's talk
> about it in March (actually, let me know your thoughts before then via
> email/phone/etc).
>
> So what now....
>
> I'd propose to do the following:
> 1. Re-word the motion to include the "without precedent" language
> 2. Re-word the motion to cover March expenses only (per Geoff's suggestion)
> 3. Re-issue the motion and call for new votes, with a new 10-day clock
> 4. Schedule a longer discussion for March
> 5. Formulate a succession plan for discussion in March
>
> Paul, can you comment on this approach before I go off half baked?
> Perhaps the best formal approach is to take Geoff's suggestion and
> rule the current motion out of order as to allow for the new one? Your
> call there.
>
> Thanks again everyone for the feedback.
> j
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Hawkins, John <jhawkins@ciena.com> wrote:
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:09 AM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary T&L
>> Funding
>>
>> Tony-
>>
>> Thanks for the support.
>>
>> I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding the extent to which Arnie
>> really set the precedent. Arnie was really a "hired gun" from the
>> outside that the SASB imposed on us and required us to cover his costs.
>> True that there was money involved but I seen it as a very different
>> situation.
>>
>> But whether it actually was different or not and whether we should
>> accept that incident as a ground breaking precedent or an experiment
>> that was perhaps a bad idea (or anything in between) is exactly why we
>> should have the discussion in a face-to-face setting.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>> On 1/11/10 11:25 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>> Geoff -
>>>
>>> I believe your re-wording of the motion as described and justified
>> below is
>>> appropriate, and so I am changing my vote to "disapprove" pending such
>> a
>>> re-wording.
>>>
>>> However, at least part of the discussion so far has suggested that
>> such
>>> actions would create a precedent, put us on a slippery slope, etc.
>> etc. The
>>> reality, in my opinion, is that that precedent has already been set by
>> the
>>> actions we took some while ago to support the then Chair of 802.20.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
>>> Sent: 12 January 2010 1:22 AM
>>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ 10 Day EC Email Ballot +++ Exec Secretary
>> T&L
>>> Funding
>>>
>>> Colleagues-
>>>
>>> Some further thoughts of mine on this motion.
>>>
>>> I think it is a bad idea for several reasons.
>>> For some of these reasons, I hope that Paul will rule it out of order
>> in
>>> its current form.
>>>
>>> 1. I think paying Buzz for his expenses for past meetings is a bad
>> idea
>>> and a bad precedent. Buzz (like the rest of us) should decide to come
>>> to meetings or not on the basis of whether or not it is affordable to
>>> him, either through sponsorship or out-of-pocket. I don't think Buzz
>> (or
>>> anyone) should pay for attending a meeting on the speculation that he
>>> might get 802 to pay for it afterwards as an unbudgeted expense.
>>>
>>> Therefore I believe that paying for Buzz's expenses for November 2009
>>> should be declared to be out of order or, at a minimum, a separate
>>> motion to be considered at an in-session meeting (presumably March).
>>>
>>> 2. I see no urgency in the decision as to whether we pay for the
>>> reimbursements under discussion for July and afterward. Therefore,
>> that
>>> portion of the motion and the discussion thereof should be declared
>>> out-of-order for this e-mail ballot and deferred until March.
>>>
>>> If those actions were followed, then the only appropriate action for
>>> consideration at this time would be a one-time motion (hopefully not
>> to
>>> set a precedent):
>>>
>>> *To provide for reimbursement of reasonable and customary
>> expenses
>>> (e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc) of the Executive Secretary for
>> the
>>> March 2010 Plenary Meeting.*
>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly believe that paying for officer expenses sets us up for a
>>> major change in the way 802 operates and that further operation in
>> this
>>> mode should not take place without an explicit and considered change
>> to
>>> our by-laws to allow 802 to pay for certain specified expenses for
>>> particular officers. This should not be done without full discussion
>> in
>>> the Working Groups and with an accompanying financial impact analysis.
>>> We will be setting a precedent that others will rush to take advantage
>>> of. Many of our officers have been self-employed at one time or
>>> another, myself included.
>>>
>>> The fallout of something like this is that effectively 802 could end
>> up
>>> paying the expenses of all of its officers except for those whose
>>> employers decide to cover expenses. This would significantly change
>> the
>>> nature of 802 as well as have a significant upward impact on meeting
>>> fees. This would also have to be approved or at least allowed by the
>>> IEEE-SA.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>>
>>> Geoffrey O. Thompson
>>> Chair, 802 Emergency Services EC Study Group
>>> Member Emeritus, 802 Executive Committee
>>> GraCaSI Standards Advisory Services
>>> <thompson@ieee.org>
>>> +1.540.227.0059 (Google Voice)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/11/10 7:06 AM, John Hawkins wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear EC members,
>>>>
>>>> I should have brought this up in November, but alas it didn't get
>>>> done. Apologies in advance for cluttering your inboxes with another
>>>> email ballot.
>>>>
>>>> Paul has delegated the conduct of the IEEE 802 EC 10-day ballot on
>> the
>>>> following motion to me.
>>>>
>>>> Motion:
>>>> The EC approves the use of IEEE 802 resources for reimbursement of
>>>> reasonable and customary expenses (e.g. airfare, hotel, meals, etc)
>>>> for Buzz Rigsbee, the IEEE 802 Executive Secretary, for the following
>>>> plenaries, or until he is replaced, whichever is sooner:
>>>>
>>>> - 2009 November plenary
>>>> - 2010 March, July, November plenaries
>>>>
>>>> Such reimbursement will be not to exceed $1,000 per plenary, averaged
>>>> over the period
>>>>
>>>> Moved: John Hawkins
>>>> Seconded: Steve Shellhammer
>>>>
>>>> Start of ballot: Tuesday 12th January, 2010
>>>> Close of ballot: Friday 22nd January 2010, 11:59PM EDT
>>>>
>>>> Early close: As required in subclause 3.1.2.2 'Electronic Balloting'
>>>> of the IEEE project 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) Operations
>>>> Manual, this is notice that this ballot may close early once
>>>> sufficient responses are received to clearly decide a matter.
>>>>
>>>> Rationale:
>>>>
>>>> - As most of you are aware, Buzz has now formally retired from
>> Boeing
>>>> and therefore has lost them as source of support for attending our
>>>> meetings. Fortunately for us, Buzz is willing to continue his service
>>>> as Executive Secretary for the IEEE 802. Given the complexity of this
>>>> function, and the significant time and commitment involved, this is a
>>>> positive for us.
>>>>
>>>> - The motion proposes that we cover his expenses, at least in
>> part.
>>>> Mostly these would consist of airfare and local transportation, but
>>>> may also involve hotel/meals in certain instances. Note that hotels
>>>> often "comp" Buzz's room expenses given his role in negotiating
>>>> contracts on our behalf, but there could be an exception here or
>> there
>>>> so I'm leaving the motion open to that possibility. Note also that we
>>>> are limiting the commitment to actual expenses, not to exceed $1,000
>>>> per plenary on average and would be limited to the listed sessions
>>>> requiring new approval thereafter. This is modeled after the approach
>>>> we used with supporting Arnie's T&L a few years ago, and certainly is
>>>> a level we can handle within our current budget.
>>>>
>>>> - I have communicated with Paul and Buzz and we agree that this is
>>>> not a long-term solution, as Buzz will someday desire to "retire"
>>>> from IEEE 802 as well. We agree that a succession plan is needed and
>>>> are investigating the best way forward there. This will be a
>> difficult
>>>> function to fill with a volunteer, as it involves little
>>>> technical/standards work, and yet consumes significant time and
>>>> commitment. Since Buzz is willing and able, I think this is a wise
>>>> investment of a limited amount of our funds in the short term.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> 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.