RE: stds-802-16: 802 Rules Change ballots underway
Members of 802.16
Though I do not yet have voting priviliges in 802.16, I would like to
support Itzik and Naftaly. We should be able to discipline ourselves to
avoid stepping on peoples religious constraints and oversees travel
constraints.
Mark Klerer
-----Original Message-----
From: Itzik Kitroser [mailto:itzikk@runcom.co.il]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:06 AM
To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-16: 802 Rules Change ballots underway
Hello all,
I would like to support Naftaly concerning issue #1.
I voted "disapprove" on letter ballot#5 because of the statement "and in
particular to authorize the Working Group Closing Plenary, on 24 May 2002,
to act, with a 75% majority of those members present.."
The main concern was the request for approve non-quorum decisions on Friday
24/05/02.
The process of having major decisions on Fridays, where many are not present
and other having their eyes on the clock to catch the airplane in time is
wrong and discriminates members that are living outside of US.
Working on late Fridays discriminate also a religious people that can't work
at late hours on Fridays.
I am willing to work harder on the other week's days, if required, and
finish meetings on Thursday nights, this is feasible and we have the Finland
meeting to prove this.
How about you?
Regards,
Itzik.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-16@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
>Naftali Chayat
>Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:56 AM
>To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: stds-802-16: 802 Rules Change ballots underway
>
>
>Hello Roger,
>
>Follows my opinion on the issues raised.
>
>(1) move the SEC Closing Meeting to 1-6 pm on Fridays
>
>I strongly object to that. While appreciating the willingness
>of SEC members
>to work late on Friday, the next step will be that the Working
>Groups will
>stretch the closing plenaries till Friday noon. In the past
>the SEC closing
>meetings were on Thursday night, then it shifted to Friday
>morning, and now
>to Friday afternoon. I want to remind to my US colleagues that to reach
>Israel by Saturday evening, meet my family and be at work on Sunday (a
>workday in Israel) I have to depart from US about Friday noon
>the latest
>from most places in the US.
>
>Same, by the way, is relevant to Interim meetings. In 802.16 meeting in
>Finland it seemed natural that no meetings will be held on
>Friday so that US
>people will get home by weekend.
>
>In the past I tried to attend the SEC closing plenary, at
>least for the few
>items that interested me. This goal becomes more and more
>elusive. It hurts
>the openness of the process in SEC.
>
>I consider the creep in conducting business later and later on Fridays
>inappropriate and uncourteous towards non-US members (just to
>remind that
>IEEE is an international organization). For all the reasons stated I
>strongly object to the motion.
>
>(2) add a second SEC vice chair
>
>Without knowing the workload on the Vice Chair, a second VC
>seems more like
>a backup position rather than an acting one. I would recommend
>designating
>one of the SEC members as a Second Vice Chair rather than
>inflating the SEC.
>
>(3) permit email voting in WG (other than Letter Ballots)
>
>The proposed change in rules lacks two things: a definition of response
>time, and a mechanism of raising motions to be resolved by
>email voting. Can
>I decide on June 20th that I want to move that Wavelet
>modulation be removed
>from 802.16h and send a motion to the reflector? How much time
>will be given
>to respond (2 minutes)? What is the mechanism for having discussion
>(probably email to the reflector), keeping some thread of
>discussion and
>limiting discussion (rather than have 183 emails, 160 of which
>with useless
>rhetoric between 3 members)?
>
>Another issue is that committee work is usually a focused and planned
>effort. Having motions dripping between meetings will cause
>all of us to be
>on alert all the time and increase the fraction of time spent
>on committee
>work. I have some other work to do between meetings.
>
>Technical work is usually done by relatively small subgroups
>of experts.
>Having quorum requirement on email technical votes will cause
>many of those
>to fail due to lack of interest, and then somebody will come with
>"membership loss" rules etc.
>
>I would like to remind that there is another tool for
>technical progress
>between meetings, and that is teleconferences. Those are seldom used in
>802.16, but in 802.11, for example, many issues are promoted by
>teleconferences.
>
>To summarize, email voting mechanism is a tool which needs to
>be in place
>(especialy for urgent issues such as response to external
>events), however
>the current motion does not detail the safeguards for its
>proper use and
>more work is needed to define those. I speak against the motion in its
>current form.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Naftali Chayat.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
>Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 1:36 AM
>To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
>Subject: stds-802-16: 802 Rules Change ballots underway
>
>
>The 802 SEC is in the process of balloting on three rules changes.
>The voters are the SEC members, including me. The ballots all close
>on 8 June. Comment resolution is scheduled for the July meeting.
>
>Here are the three issues, briefly described, along with a link to
>the email announcement of the ballot:
>
>(1) move the SEC Closing Meeting to 1-6 pm on Fridays
>Sure: http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg02043.html
>
>(2) add a second SEC vice chair
>Sure: http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg02095.html
>
>(3) permit email voting in WG (other than Letter Ballots)
>Sure: http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg02040.html
>
>I have uploaded the text of the three changes to the WG upload
>directory.
>
>I will be discussing these at the Opening Plenary at Session #19, and
>I welcome your comments at the meeting or by email (preferably to the
>reflector).
>
>Roger