Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I'm
sorry Paul, but that point was never made during the meeting and can't be
assumed to be part of anyone's decision yesterday. I certainly don't agree
with it. I believe that the decision was made for entirely unsupportable
reasons. The only point that was made regarding the individuals elected by
802.20 was that they had not participated in the study group, not that they had
no experience in 802. Certainly, the elected chair of 802.20 had previous
experience in 802 and extensive experience in other standards-making
organizations. Your position is not a reflection of the
facts.
Regarding the decision of the SEC not to affirm the elections of 802.20,
there was no evidence presented of any irregular procedures, failure to
follow published procedures, or irregularity in the voting. My position,
as I stated at the SEC meeting, is that all procedures were followed
scrupulously and the elections, which I observed as an SEC member, were
without protest by any person present at the 802.20 meeting. As far as I
can tell, the decision not to affirm was made on the unsupported
allegations of two individual participants in 802.20. Are we prepared to
invalidate every other working group decision that requires SEC affirmation with
the same level of evidence, i.e., two allegations unsupported by any
evidence?
Indeed, no concrete guidance was provided to the appointed interim chair
of 802.20 on how not to wind up in exactly the same situation when the next
elections are held. Is the SEC prepared to affirm the elections, if the
same candidates are nominated and elected at the July meeting? Is a single
802 meeting experience enough? If not, where is it written in our Policies
and Procedures (formerly our Rules) that you have to have some number of
meetings under your belt before you can become an officer of a working
group?
I
can't support the opinion you offered as to why the election of the officers was
not affirmed by the SEC. If asked, I will offer my own, quite different,
opinion.
-Bob
O'Hara -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:55 AM To: IEEE802 Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation Dear SEC,
People will want to know why the SEC did not
affirm the 802.20 officer candidates presented to at the closing plenary
meeting. I have already had two inquiries. In my view, the
decision was made because the candidates were not qualified due to lack of
experience in 802.
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich |