RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Addition of second vice chair position to SEC
All-
I agree with Pat that the issue of succession is important. One of the most
important functions of rule making is (preferably) to make rules in a
neutral manner when there is little or no contention so that whenever
contention does arise that the rules will serve us well and unambiguously.
If we don't do this then the rules will not serve us well and mere
contention can degenerate into controversy and even bitterness.
I don't personally care how it is done nor what the labels are. In order to
have my support (and vote) the proposal must be unambiguous with respect to
who is first in line to take over for the Chair (1st vs. 2nd, Sr. vs Jr.,
Exec VC vs Ordinary, who cares?)
Geoff
At 12:39 PM 4/2/02 -0500, Matthew Sherman wrote:
>Paul / Pat / All,
>
>I'm a non-voting member, but still would like to express my opinion on this
>issue with the recognition by all that it does directly impact me. I
>largely agree with Pat. However, I'd like to suggest a slightly different
>perspective.
>
>First, there is an existing model in 802 for having 2 Vice Chairs to be
>considered. Both 802.11 and 802.15 have multiple Vice Chairs. In both
>working groups, there is no formal distinction between the Vice Chairs. The
>operating rules for 802.11 and 802.15 both call out a "co-vice chair"
>position. 802.15 rules do not clearly call out the function of a co-vice
>chair. 802.11 does more fully define the co-vice chair position, but
>neither 802.11 nor 802.15 clearly define an order of succession as it would
>relate to the co-vice chair position identified. Also, none of the
>individuals currently elected and acting in the "Vice Chair" capacity for
>802.11 and 802.15 are called co-vice chairs or anywhere identified as such.
>In the recent elections, they were all nominated and elected simply as "Vice
>Chairs". The co-vice chair position in the 802.11 and 802.15 rules seems to
>be unused and out of date. The 802.11 and 802.15 working groups seem to
>have informally superceded the rules moving instead to have two Vice Chair
>positions. To my knowledge, the issue of succession between these vice
>chairs is never formally addressed. It is also my understanding that at
>least in 802.11, the operating rules are actively being amended, and that
>the "co-vice chair" position may be eliminated leaving only Vice Chairs.
>I'm not sure if the succession issue will be addressed.
>
>My own opinion is that designating a co-vice chair, or, 1st and 2nd vice
>chairs is actually more confusing then simply having two vice chairs. I
>think it was Paul's intent that both individuals would serve equally, and he
>would have no formal distinction in how he calls on them, or the duties they
>would be asked to perform. I believe that this is how things currently work
>in 802.11 and 802.15 as well. I don't believe any issues have arisen with
>this approach in 802.11 or 802.15, and the approach seems to work well.
>Also, 802.11 and 802.15 migrated to having two Vice Chairs from having a
>vice chair and a co-vice chair, so there would seem to be some superiority
>to the approach of having two vice chairs. However I agree with Pat that
>there should be a formalization of succession between the Vice Chairs in
>case a dispute ever did arise. To resolve the issue, I would suggest the
>following:
>
>In the proposed rules change, after:
>
>"(The LMSC Chair may appoint one or two Vice Chairs at his' or her's
>discretion."
>
>Insert:
>
>"If two vice chairs are nominated for appointment, the minutes of the
>meeting where nomination occurs must clearly note the order of nomination.
>In case of a dispute over succession, the first person nominated as Vice
>Chair shall have priority."
>
>Note that I also agree with Pat's grammatical correction concerning "his or
>her", though I have not noted it above. In the case of Geoff and myself,
>should the rules changes above be adopted, Geoff was nominated first, and
>would have priority as far as succession is concerned.
>
>Since I am a non-voting member, I'm not sure what the disposition of my
>comments on this ballot would be. However, I would most be interested in
>hearing peoples opinions on my comments, particularly Pat's and Geoff's,
>though I believe Roger also raised this issue. If anyone likes my proposed
>resolution, I guess they could add it to their own comments.
>
>Anyway, hope my opinion is helpful.
>
>Mat
>
>Matthew Sherman
>PTSM - Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room 3K18, Building 104
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:02 PM
>To: p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Addition of
>s econd vice chair position to SEC
>
>
>
>Paul,
>
>Please consider the following comments on the addition of a second vice
>chair.
>
>Since part of the purpose of having a vice chair is to ensure that there is
>a leader in the case where the chair becomes unexpectedly unable to serve
>(either temporarily or permanently), the chain of succession needs to be
>made clear. (Things may not be contentious at the current moment, but at
>some point in the future they might be.) Therefore, some text should be
>added to cover that such as "When there are two vice chairs, they shall be
>designated first vice chair and second vice chair. The first vice chair will
>assume the duties of chair if the chair is unable to do so. The second vice
>chair assumes those duties if both the chair and the first vice chair are
>unable."
>
>Secondly, I believe it is time to remove "ex-officio members" from the list
>of executive committee members. As Bob Grow pointed out, the statement has
>no meaning for the current Executive committee. When the rules were first
>written, the chairs of the original 802 MAC and Physical Layer working
>groups were ex-officio members of the Executive committee - members as a
>consequence of having held those offices. Currently, the only ex-officio
>members are the working group and tag chairs but they are listed explicitly.
>
>Balance of elected vs. appointed members: currently, 6 (or 7 if the TAG got
>approved) executive committee members are elected and 4 are appointed (not
>counting the Executive committtee chair in either group). This seems a bit
>heavy on the appointed side.
>
>Grammar: It should be "his or her discretion." His and her are already
>possessive and don't need 's added to make them so.
>
>Pat
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:Paul.nikolich@worldnet.att.net]
>Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:43 AM
>To: 'IEEE802'
>Subject: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Addition of
>second vice chair position to SEC
>
>
>Dear SEC,
>
>This email provides notice of the rules change letter ballot for the
>addition of a second vice chair to the SEC. The detailed changes are
>included in the attached PDF file.
>
>Scope: Rules Change to add a second SEC vice chair.
>
>Purpose: To amend to rules allow the SEC to have two vice chair positions.
>
>Rationale:
>The scope and size of the IEEE Project 802 has increased to the point where
>the amount of project 802 management work and range of knowledge has
>significantly increased in the past 5 years. Adding a second vice chair to
>the sponsor executive committee will better enable it to manage IEEE 802's
>wide range of activities.
>
>The ballot opens March 31, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12 midnight EDT
>(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE
>vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide email list as
>well. WG chairs, please invite your WG members to comment through you.
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul Nikolich
>
>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
>email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
>cell: 857.205.0050
>mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940