|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
There was some (IMHO, excessive) discussion about the status of ex-officio voters on the EC call yesterday.
I thought I would set down my understanding of this and related issues, which you may or may not find useful.
The term "ex-officio" means "by virtue of office". By virtue of their office as an EC voter, any EC voter can also vote in any WG motion (f2f or letter ballot) (and also TAG, but I'm not 100% sure on that).
Regardless of what you as WG chair might call them, all EC voters are ex-officio voting members of your WG.
However, as James pointed out, they do have a special (IMHO) role regarding the numerology. They should
only be considered part of "eligible voters" if they choose to vote. This doesn't have much of an impact in a group like 802.11, with >350 voters. But in a small group where the number of WG voting members is less than the EC voting membership, any other interpretation would cause letter ballots to fail due to an insufficient return count.
In 802.11, ex-officio voters are not part of the voters list associated with an initial letter ballot. But if any EC voter does respond to a WG ballot, their vote is counted and they are added to the voters list of any subsequent recirculations.
802.11 recognizes as an ex-officio voter any EC voter that asks to be recognized as such. This doesn't affect their entitlement to vote. What it does do is ensure they have a V11 voting token on their badge, because I include these
individuals in the list of "voters" sent to the meeting planner. If somebody doesn't ask to be so recognized, they won't
have a V11 voting token. If they chose to participate in an 802.11 WG motion at a meeting, the tellers may or may not
recognize them as an EC voter. If not, the WG chair would instruct the tellers to recognize them as a voter. If this happened in a TG meeting, it is likely that there would be a little bit of to and fro before their status was properly recognized - hence the utility of such explicit recognition.
802.11 also recognizes certain individuals a voting members who do not necessarily meet the requirements that entitle them to such status. At the moment only: Vic Hayes, Stuart Kerry, Bruce Kraemer, and Norm Finn. have this recognition.
This, according to our rules, is in the gift of the WG chair. The criterion for this list should be evident, except for Norm who volunteered to be TGak co-editor. A future WG chair may well choose to do something different. 802.11 also excuses individual ballot returns and meeting attendance on a case-by-case basis which would otherwise also cause loss of voting membership. The criteria for this excuse is usually "situation beyond their control", such as a medical emergency.
Note, in the interests of transparency, the 802.11 members list (http://www.ieee802.org/11/Voters/votingmembers.htm) contains sufficient information that the list of voters granted membership by the chair who would not normally have membership by virtue of their attendance can be determined (status = "Voter", expiry date = <blank>). I believe such transparency is necessarily part of healthy "checks and balances". The members list is updated after every 802.11 session.
OK, I'm now sufficiently off the original topic, I should stop. So I have.
Best Regards, Adrian Stephens IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair mailto: email@example.com Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032 Skype: adrian_stephens
On 03/10/2016 05:43, Mody, Apurva (US) wrote:
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.