RE: [RPRWG] Re: Comments from Non-Members
Tony,
Thanks.
That was useful information not only for me but for a whole bunch of
other people on the mailing list.
Vinay
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:13 AM
To: Vinay Bannai
Cc: Mike Takefman; Robert D. Love; Tom Alexander; Castellano, Robert;
802.17
Subject: RE: [RPRWG] Re: Comments from Non-Members
Vinay -
I don't think that you have quite got it yet.
Anyone that has access to an 802 draft, whether a voting member of the
WG
that owns the draft or not, is perfectly entitled to submit comments to
the
relevant WG, and the WG is duty bound to give all such comments due
consideration. So I believe that at the top level, there are in fact
only
two kinds of people:
Those that have access to the draft; and
Those that don't.
Clearly, those that don't have access to the draft have a hard time
submitting comments, other than "I haven't seen the draft", so we can
safely ignore that group, which is just as well, as it is numbered in
the
billions these days.
Those that have access to the draft further subdivide into two kinds of
people:
Those that have voting status in the WG that owns the draft; and
Those that don't.
As of the "Chair's Guideline" approved by the Exec at the last meeting,
the
group of people that has access to the draft is potentially any
participant
in any 802 working group, not just people that show up at 802.17
meetings,
by the way. (This clearly has an effect on the old rule in 802.17 that
the
username/password for the website were only given out at .17 meetings.)
I believe that the only practical differences between these two groups
from
the perspective of the conduct of WG ballots is that:
- Whether the ballot passes or fails depends *only* on the votes
submitted
by the voting members of the WG (and is unaffected by the number of
comments received from non-voters); and
- Recircs must be accompanied by any outstanding negatives from voters,
plus the WG's rebuttal of their negatives (although, as I have observed,
there is nothing preventing the WG from circulating other comments plus
rebuttals from non-voters if it sees fit, and this can be a smart move);
and
- The attainment of voting status places an obligation on the voter to
respond to ballots.
None of the above requires the existence of any kind of proxy service in
order for non-voters to have their say in WG ballots, and for the WG to
give their comments due consideration. They simply send in their
comments.
Regards,
Tony
At 07:36 03/01/2003 -0800, Vinay Bannai wrote:
>Thanks Tony, David and Bob for responding back to me.
>I am glad to hear your opinions clarifying the position.
>
>The way I see it is as follows.
>There are kinds three kinds of people as far as the working group is
>concerned (I am not including the sponsor ballot folks).
>- Voting members : Have access to draft and can submit comments
>- Non-voting members : Have access to draft and can submit comments
>through proxy
>- Non-members : Have no access to draft(supposedly) but can they submit
>comments through proxy?
>
>I am referring to members as anyone who has attended a 802.17 meeting
>and has access to the member's web page.
>
>Thanks
>Vinay
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:12 PM
>To: Vinay Bannai
>Cc: Mike Takefman; Robert D. Love; Tom Alexander; Castellano, Robert;
>802.17
>Subject: 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
Regards,
Tony