|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
A couple of things come to mind.
1. This looks like it was a staff decision. That strikes me as inappropriate.
I believe this decision should be bumped up to the board level. The questions then becomes what board.
2. This should be a decision that can be appealed.
However, all of the appeals procedures that I have read only apply to volunteer decisions,
not to staff decisions. This would appear to be a deficiency in SA procedures.
This needs to be remedied.
3. The whole reason for this question to come up was lack of coordination
and the resistance of an entity group to coordination/openness.
If the SASB and the BoG would fix this the entire issue would go away.
4. The Computer Society seems to hold itself at some distance from the rest of the Institute (Los Alamitos vs. Piscataway).
Perhaps there is a level of independence there that could be used to help fix this.
5. I would assert that the 802 EC is "the governing body (e.g., the Board of Directors) of the entity", i.e. 802 and the rest of the chain upward is a voluntary association. 802 has the right to vote to disassociate itself from the IEEE and is therefore "the governing body".
6. If the staff and the SASB decide to play hardball and we decide to pursue the issue, then things could get very ugly and that would be a VERY BAD thing. The following are undesirable outcomes: a) the issue of exclusion of interested parties gets put before ANSI for adjudication, b) this gets to the level of adversarial proceedings between lawyers, c) this will be seen as a MASSIVE failure by staff to be able to manage their herd of cats and the result is that staff will become even weaker that it is now and the whole sand castle will just slowly crumble. d) the whole thing becomes so bitter that 802 has no choice other than to leave the SA. e) I am sure there are other ugly potential results. Enter your favorites here.
I always thought that the concept of both individual and entity membership within an SDO was a bad idea. It was trying to fix a situation that has some problems by just trading it for a new set of problems (and thus a new learning curve). This shows that the situation is worse than that. Not only is there a whole new environment in which to solve the same old problems, brand new problems have been created. This is not good.
I dearly hope that upper management both volunteer and professional (802, SA, Institute) simply declare that this situation will not be a problem and declare a fix. This is the sort of situation for which quality upper management exists. My personal opinion is that it would be easier to solve it by coming down hard on the original problem which was an unwillingness to admit all materially interested parties to the process.
The fact that the situation has gotten to this point makes me sad.
Member Emeritus, 802 EC
Recipient IEEE-SA Standards Board Distinguished Service Award
On 288//12 7:43 AM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.