|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Dear Adrian,Your point 3 is incorrect. We do have rules on the conduct of WG letter ballots. They are in Clause 11 of the WG P&P.In part:I think your point 1 provides the best basis for providing a consistent treatment of the letter ballot.Approval to forward a draft standard to the Sponsor shall require approval by a Working GroupElectronic Ballot. Abstains shall require a reason be given, and Do Not Approve votes shallrequire comments on changes required to modify the vote to Approve. For a letter ballot on adraft standard to be valid a majority of all the voting members of the Working Group must haveresponded Approve, Do Not Approve, or Abstain. Comment resolution, recirculations, etc.should be consistent with Sponsor ballot rules and 220.127.116.11 of the IEEE-SA Standards BoardOperations Manual (SASB OM).Under such a view, the voters still submit votes with any comments they wish to make independently. The votes are counted as one vote in the ballot tally but the comments are resolved through the normal comment resolution process.Your response to the question on whether an individual can lose their voting rights for not responding while they are subject to special measures isn't consistent with this view.Also that response says that the voters would not be penalized for failing to respond even if they are not subject to special measures in a subsequent recirculation. The result of such a ruling could be that the ballot falls below the required response threshold as those voters start to be counted without having an obligation to vote. If the SIG is disbanded or some companies leave the SIG near the end of the initial ballot, the initial ballot might fail response threshold.You should reconsider that Q&A response. The voters should vote as normal on letter ballot with just the tally being adjusted due to counting the votes as one.On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Adrian Stephens <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Dear all,
In the interests of full disclosure, I have received a comment from an EC member on my
proposed method of conducting letter ballot.
That member believes that the method I propose is not valid. I believe they would prefer the
ballot group to be fixed at the start of the ballot and remain constant until the completion of
the ballot series.
I believe that my proposal is valid, and offer the following points in support of my opinion:
1. One way of looking at the "special measure" is that they do not affect the composition of the ballot group, but
they do affect the means of calculating a result from the votes cast (i.e. such votes are "counted as one").
2. If all members subject to special measures are excluded from the ballot, how is the vote of this group of members to be determined?
3. There are no rules that I am aware of for conduct of WG letter ballots. In 802.11 we generally make WG letter ballot as similar as possible to sponsor ballot, but there is no requirement that this be so.
4. This is an exceptional case, not covered by sponsor ballot rules.
IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair
Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032
On 24/11/2016 07:40, Adrian Stephens wrote:
Dear 802.11 participants and EC,
As 802.11 WG chair, I have been instructed to implement the remedy approved by the 802 EC.
In doing so, a number of questions about process have already been asked by participants.
I have attempted to answer these here:
/dcn/16/11-16-1568-00-0000-int erpretation-of-special-measure s.doc
If anybody has an additional question, I will attempt to answer it in this document, provided it falls
within the scope of the actions that I have been instructed to take.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.