Re: [802SEC] 802.11 Discussion on TGax dominance
On 11/11/16, 9:35 AM, "***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** on behalf of Adrian Stephens" <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org on behalf of firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>802.11 held a discussion on the dominance report today. What follows below is my unofficial summary of the discussion that took place. The notes were captured on the screen in real time. Please view this as subjective and unapproved.
>Comments on report:
>* Report has potential to damage the industry
>* Report has only been available for 2 days
>* There needs to be an opportunity to rebut the findings.
>The report is long and generation of a considered rebuttal takes time.
>* The report does not support the conclusion of dominance
>* There is evidence of bias in the report
>* Report is fair.
>We are following the approved process doing it the way we are.
>* What about corner case of an acquisition post the report?
>* Remedy itself is unfair
>* An alternative remedy should be considered that is not as harsh/punitive.
>* Straw poll:
>how many people think that the EC should not take an action today?
>* Yes 23
>* No 16
>* Abstain 7
No one thought of having a recorded vote for this? It would be interesting to know
how many voters were affiliated with companies in the SIG.
>* Thorough report.
>We are at D1.0, really should have had this process earlier in the process.
>Straw poll (below) itself could be the victim of dominance.
>* The guidance on good/bad SIGs is helpful.
>* Our process is visible to the public, we need to avoid "badmouthing" ourselves.
>Caution should be exercised.
>* Recommend an obligation to inform of SIG membership.
>Need tools to ensure professional conduct as an obligation of participation.
>* Report is factual.
>Nobody complained at lack of time or bias on TGai dominance report.
>* What examples are there of factual error?
>* Report is factual, but leaves out important facts.
>Dominance is "… exclusion of fair",
>but report lists many docs and straw polls from complainant,
>showing fair consideration. Two proposals from "long list of authors" failed this week - demonstrates that dominance is not taking place.
>* Report was specific,
>but investigation was into a much broader topic - the role of SIGs.
>Use of language supports claim of bias of authors of report.
>Many facts not in the report are relevant.
>* There has been a persistent issue (pattern of behaviour).
>Nobody has been placed in a bad position because they have freedom to leave SIG.
>* Applaud effort.
>Report was not easy. It is detailed.
>But disagree with conclusion. There was no coercion,
>votes were not directed. Sometimes proposals from "long list of authors" failed.
>Remedy applying to companies rather than SIG individual participants goes too far.
>We are here as individuals. Definition of bad behaviour might also apply to reasonably consensus-forming.
>* Remedy is draconian,
>those who are not participating in any SIG have their vote taken away.
>* WG chair is obligated to investigate complaints.
>Motions that failed this week in TGax might be because members of "long list" are behaving more cautiously.
>"unfair to individuals" is wrong because individuals are affiliated to companies.
>It would not be possible for individuals to resolve their own conflicts of interest.
>~2003 SIGs had known & public identity.
>Now it happens in secret. Discussions behind the scenes.
>* Due process is needed.
>No need to rush. Strong feelings on topic of SIGs are evident.
>Perhaps general discussion on individual/entity model is due.
>IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
>Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
>Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451 (when in USA)
>---------- 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.