Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] Signs of dominance toolkit

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

Hello folks,

Signs of dominance are required to suggest exactly that, ‘dominance’ otherwise it’s just signs or observations of the discussion happening outside the meeting room which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

IEEE-SA define dominance as:

“exercise of authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.”

Accordingly for an observation to be considered a ‘sign of dominance’ two conditions needs to concurrently exist:

1. The TG has become dysfunctional – meaning that the technical development of std. is happening elsewhere.

Whilst

2. Legitimate technical submissions which are presented to the TG are excluded on an unfair basis.

Agree with Andrew’s observation that “when the discussion during the IEEE meeting dies down and debating technical issues is almost non existing”

on its own it is not a sign dominance, because there was no exclusion of equitable viewpoint.

It may only be considered as such if and only if, there is an alternative technical submission of equitable view point which was not properly considered by the group, meaning the group rejected it on non-technical basis.

Same goes for “When motions are passed with little resistance and the TG becomes a rubber stamp for things happening elsewhere”

If there was no alternative technical approach proposed and rejected on a non-technical basis, it is not dominance, it is a sign of progress and agreement development.

Allowing the accusations of malpractice, without proper regard for evidence of foul play, to influence our technical agreement and decision making process, will impair our work just the same.

-Jonathan

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 22:38
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] Signs of dominance toolkit

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---

G’day Osama

I disagree that these are necessarily signs of dominance. Rather, they are potentially signs that IEEE has ceased to be a forum where people want to have technical discussions. That is a different issue and deserves discussion too.

A fundamental question is why are people doing work in SIGs and not IEEE-SA?

· Is it so they can be dominant or is it because they believe the SIGs offer environments that are better in some way(s) than IEEE-SA?

· Is there something that IEEE-SA can do to make our forums more attractive to counter the SIGs?

· Alternatively, should IEEE-SA accept the existence of the SIGs and rather focus on how we can integrate their output into our processes, while still maintaining our philosophy of openness and consensus?

OA suggested sign of dominance> When the discussion during the IEEE meeting dies down and debating technical issues is almost non existing.

This is only a sign of dominance when any attempts to have technical discussions in IEEE-SA are suppressed.

OA suggested sign of dominance> When motions are passed with little resistance and the TG becomes a rubber stamp for things happening elsewhere

Again this is only dominance when the people offering the “little resistance” are ignored.

Andrew

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Osama AboulMagd
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017 11:43 PM
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] Signs of dominance toolkit

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---

Hi Adrian,

I’d like to add two points:

· When the discussion during the IEEE meeting dies down and debating technical issues is almost non existing.

· When motions are passed with little resistance and the TG becomes a rubber stamp for things happening elsewhere.

Regards;

Osama.

From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Myles (amyles)
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 8:37 PM
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] Signs of dominance toolkit

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---

G'day all

I agree with many/most ideas as signs of "potential dominance"

However, at least some of them are also signs that people are working together outside the IEEE-SA forum. Working together outside IEEE-SA is not necessarily the same as dominance and actually can be to the benefit of the IEEE-SA standards development process.

The key signs of dominance from my perspective are when:

· People with well-argued ideas are ignored

· People don’t explain their ideas fully and yet they are approved anyway

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: *** IEEE stds-802-11-cac List *** [mailto:STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Emmelmann
Sent: Saturday, 18 March 2017 11:00 AM
To: STDS-802-11-CAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-CAC] Signs of dominance toolkit

--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector ---

Hi Adrian,

I’d add:

* members request that motions on technical topics be deferred “to consult with technical experts back home in their office”

* motions are deferred to a later time slot (in which participants are noted to attend that have not been

in the slot the original discussion took place)

* members start calling / texting / skyping colleague to encourage them to attend a specific session / slot

as a specific motion became know to occur in that slot

* total number of votes (in the room) associated with the same affiliation is >= 25% of total votes.

* LB comments submitted by different individuals are verbatim copies of each other

May the forth be with you to finalize the list on time ;-)

> On 17 Mar 2017, at 16:33, Adrian Stephens <adrian.p.stephens@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee

> Reflector --- Dear CAC members,

> Paul Nikolich asked me during the 802 task force meeting this week to provide criteria that can be used to determine that some kind of dominant or other bad behaviour might be taking place in a group. I have a deadline of 4th May.

> Based on my own observations, I have put together this list:

> • A group of individuals appears to always vote the same way

> • An individual makes a presentation and nobody pays any attention to them

> • An individual make a presentation so poor that nobody could understand it, and there is no complaint or request for clarification

> • There is a lot of work to do, but telecons are poorly attended or

> repeatedly cancelled

> I would welcome contributions to this list.

> The purpose of doing this is to create a "toolkit" that can be used by chairs to evaluate the behaviour of their groups.

> --

> Sincerely,

> Adrian Stephens

> IEEE 802.11 Working Group Chair

> mailto:

> adrian.p.stephens@xxxxxxxx

> Phone: +1 (971) 203-2032

> Mobile: +1 (210) 268-6451 (when in USA)

> Mobile: +44 7342178905 (when in the UK)

> Skype: adrian_stephens

> ______________________________________________________________________

> _________ IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT

> send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.

> SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.

> Further information can be found at:

> http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html

> ______________________________________________________________________

> _________

_______________________________________________________________________________