RE: [RPRWG] Re: Comments from Non-Members
Vinay -
I would put it slightly differently. There is a reason we all attend
standards meetings - it is to get a piece of work done, and to represent
our positions in that process.
You can think of the conferring of voting rights as not so much the
granting of a privilege as the imposition of an obligation - as a voter,
you are obliged to present your position, whereas the non-voter has the
luxury of a choice.
The process is an open one, so there is absolutely no requirement for
voting membership in order to represent our positions - on the contrary,
the process is obligated to give due consideration to all comments,
regardless of their origin. The only exception here is that our rules
explicitly allow action to be taken against "block voting" tactics, but
that is not what is being suggested here.
If the process is being handled right, there should therefore be no need
for the kind of proxying that Bob has offered during the WG ballot stages -
although for the reasons Dave James mentions, I can't see any problem with
what he is offering to do.
When it comes to the Sponsor ballot stage of a project, where the comment
submission mechanism is only made available to members of the Sponsor
balloting group, it is not uncommon for members of the balloting group that
are also members of the WG to make just such an offer to represent comments
on behalf of other WG members that didn't choose to sign up for the Sponsor
ballot.
Which is probably a timely moment to point out that balloting at Sponsor
ballot stage involves an "invitation to ballot" that is sent out to a
"balloting pool". Usually, the pool is per-working group. So if you plan to
take part in the Sponsor ballot stage of this or any other 802 project, you
need to get signed up for the relevant balloting pool, which you can do at:
http://standards.ieee.org/db/balloting/ballotform.html
Regards,
Tony
At 12:59 02/01/2003 -0800, Vinay Bannai wrote:
>Mike,
>
>I have a slight reservation about proxying of comments. There is a
>reason we all attend the standards meeting. We attend it several times a
>year to gain voting rights and present our positions and later comment
>on the draft standard. My personal opinion is that we should tread very
>carefully on proxying of comments on behalf of non-members. Since the
>proxy comments are now submitted by a voting member, they now carry the
>full weight of a comment submitted by a voter.
>
>How are we going to keep track of who is proxying for whom? Isn't this a
>dilution of our voting rights and responsibilities?
>
>Thanks
>Vinay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 8:28 AM
>To: Robert D. Love
>Cc: 'Tom Alexander'; Castellano, Robert; 802.17
>Subject: [RPRWG] Re: Comments from Non-Members
>
>
>In the past we have accepted comments from anyone
>who cared to submit them. I do not see this changing.
>
>I agree with Bob, that a non member does not have the
>right to have their rejected comment carried forward
>as an unresolved negative.
>
>If Bob or anyone chooses to submit a comment on
>behalf of another person, I strongly urge them to
>review the comment, agree with it and be able to
>argue for it.
>
>mike
>--
>Michael Takefman tak@xxxxxxxxx
>Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
>Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
>2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
>voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
Regards,
Tony