| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Roger,
I believe there are a few other points that were made at the meeting that were relevant to the 802.20 situation. These include:
1) I think it was expressed by all but one SEC voter that the current WG membership rules were inadequate to cover the situation that arose in 802.20 and needed to change 2) There was an allegation that went on record from the floor that election improprieties occurred during the 802.20 election 3) The issues of block voting was discussed extensively
Also keep in mind that Bob O’Hara is a human being. And though he makes a valiant effort, he does not capture every word that is said in an SEC session in the minutes. Specifically I saw no mention of block voting issues. However I know we discussed the issue of block voting and whether it could have occurred in the 802.20 elections. While I stayed pretty neutral on the topic I know that I quoted a definition of block voting as: 3.4.1 Voting GuidanceIt is expected that LMSC Executive Committee members will vote as both professionals and as individual experts, except under the Directed Position provisions of Procedure 8, and not as a member of any affiliate block (organization, alliance, company, consortium, special interest group, etc.). If substantive evidence is presented to the LMSC Chair that this provision is violated, the LMSC Executive Committee will meet to consider what, if any, action to take on the presented evidence. Such action may include any action up to and including a recommendation for removal from office.
And I essentially asked the question of whether 3GPP could be considered such an organization (block) under such voting guidance. I don’t think we ever answered that question. Also I should note that anyone who cares can attend the SEC meeting. Several non-SEC members did this meeting. And (with the exception of when we asked Carl to step out of the room) how individuals voted could be observed by those present. There were no secret ballots. The bottom line is I think if you consider ALL the information presented during the closing SEC meeting, your analogy fails. At least it fails for me.
Best Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman -----Original Message-----
SEC,
I would like to summarize the arguments I heard articulated in the Closing SEC Meeting.
On the one hand, the vote was conducted fully in accordance with all the rules and under the auspices of the SEC leadership, the voters were all authorized to vote, and the results were unambiguous. This is unchallenged.
On the other hand:
*Many of the voters did not attend meetings of the 802 MBWA Study Group. *Some of the voters may have been less than fully aware of the background. *Many of the participants work for companies in the communications industry, or have no traceable business interest in the issues. *It's possible that some voters may have voted in alignment with their business interests. *It could be that some of the participants discussed the issue before the meeting. *Leaders may have advocated positions with voters before the meeting. *Some people were surprised by the result. *Some people don't feel right about the whole thing. *There is no record of how each individual voter voted, so the voters are not accountable.
Do you catch the irony here? If not, then take another look at the description above and see if it applies to the SEC vote voiding the 802.20 elections.
Roger |