Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes




The ballot closes on December 30, 2003 at noon EST.

I will be sending out an email with the current results
later this week.

But in general, I need more responses from people.

thanks,

mike

stuart.kerry@philips.com wrote:
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Please excuse my ignorance but please remind me of the closing date of 
> the 35 day ballot. In the light of the forthcoming holidays, I do not 
> want to miss this important question and miss placing my vote on record.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stuart
> _______________________________
> 
> Stuart J. Kerry
> Chair, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG
> 
> Philips Semiconductors, Inc.
> 1109 McKay Drive, M/S 48A SJ,
> San Jose, CA 95131-1706,
> United States of America.
> 
> Ph  : +1 (408) 474-7356
> Fax: +1 (408) 474-7247
> Cell: +1 (408) 348-3171
> eMail: stuart.kerry@philips.com
> _______________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>*
> 
> Sent by:
> owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> 
> 12/17/2003 09:52
> 
>        
>         To:        Mike Takefman <tak@cisco.com>
>         cc:        stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> (bcc: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS)
>         Subject:        Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot 
> on Roll Call Votes
> 
>         Classification:        
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I vote Disapprove.
> 
> We have heard about the use of roll-call votes to separate voters from 
> non-voters. Each WG has a need to handle this problem, and each has a 
> long tradition of solving it effectively. In 802.16, for instance, we 
> use voting tokens. For us, this a more efficient solution than roll-call 
> voting.
> 
> We have also heard that a forced roll-call voting is somehow tied to 
> "block voting." However, "block voting" is not prohibited, or even 
> mentioned, in the P&P. The P&P simply gives the WG Chair the authority 
> to "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an organization, and, 
> if so, treat that  organizations' vote as one (with the approval of the 
> Executive Committee)." Since the Chair makes the procedural decisions, 
> the Chair already has the power to order a roll call vote if that will 
> assist his or her determination or help prepare supporting material for 
> presenting a case to the EC.
> 
> Since I see no need for this P&P change, I am, by default, opposed. We 
> seem to have reached a general consensus that our P&P should be less, 
> not more, specific. It was also my understanding that we (informally) 
> agreed to operate under a rules-change moratorium while Mat revises the 
> P&P format. Because of that moratorium, we put even high-priority rules 
> changes on the back burner.
> 
> Finally, there is the question of the possible negative impact of this 
> rules change. I certainly see such potential. The proposal would allow 
> 20% of the membership to force a group to spend up to 20% of its time 
> counting the roll (not to mention the time administering the motion to 
> initiate the roll call vote). That is, in my view, an unacceptable 
> inefficiency of process. And the real cost to the group's progress can 
> be much closer to 100%. For instance, in 802.16, we finalize the group's 
> progress for the week in a dense Closing Plenary. Giving up 20% of the 
> Closing Plenary to roll calls could cost us much more than 20% of our 
> week's progress.
> 
> The WG Chair has a lot of responsibility and can't carry it out without 
> the ability to manage the agenda. This P&P change would make the agenda 
> even more unpredictable. It could also easily backfire and result in a 
> WG being "dominated by an organization" whose tactic is to force 
> roll-call votes.
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>  >Dear EC Members,
>  >
>  >as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
>  >EC meeting I am starting a (35 day)  ballot on
>  >the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
>  >to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
>  >(and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
>  >earlier).
>  >
>  >I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
>  >during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
>  >the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
>  >to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
>  >
>  >The language you will find enclosed is different (and
>  >I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
>  >
>  >1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
>  >(less of a run-on sentence).
>  >2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
>  >by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
>  >motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
>  >be used as a delaying tactic.
>  >
>  >Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
>  >sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
>  >was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
>  >has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
>  >but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
>  >
>  >cheers,
>  >
>  >mike
>  >--
>  >Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
>  >Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
>  >Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>  >3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>  >voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991
>  >
>  >
>  >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revisi 1.doc 
> (WDBN/MSWD) (0023B7AD)
>  >Attachment converted: TiDrive:802_RollCall_P&P.pdf (PDF /CARO) (0023B7AE)
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Michael Takefman              tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       cell:613-220-6991