Paul,
At least for me there were many reasons
why I abstained on the confirmation vote. The experience issue was part
of it, especially as it relates to the membership rules change. But
certainly this is not the whole story. One of the key reasons for me was
that someone from the audience was will to come up to the mike and go on record
that they believed “there were improprieties in the election process for
802.20.” (taken from the draft minutes). Clearly there was doubt
in my mind based on many issues concerning the validity of the process followed
or I would have affirmed. What I would suggest is that maybe we need an
SEC conference call to try and draft a more explicit statement on what
happened. If you and Geoff will be in NJ next week, perhaps we can all
get together and host one. But honestly, I think each of us probably has
a different perspective on what was said and what influenced their vote.
I think the most important thing to do is to endeavor to make the minutes
publicly available as soon as reasonably possible. However I recognize
that completing the minutes is not an easy job, and it may take a while till
they are available. Once the minutes are available we can simply
reference people to those minutes, and the e-mail trail on this
reflector. For the moment, rather than give an official opinion, you can
always provide your personal view of what happened with the caveat that it is
your personal view. Just a suggestion.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE
802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs -
Shannon Laboratory
Room B255,
Building 103
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: Bob O'Hara
[mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Saturday, March
15, 2003 5:18 PM
To: Paul Nikolich; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20
affirmation
Even this, relaxed,
statement is not supported by what was said at the meeting. All that I
recall that was said was that they did not participate in the study
group.
-Bob
-----Original
Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003
1:17 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20
affirmation
I did not mean to indicate the
candidates had zero experience in 802. Howver, you are correct
that the statement reads that way. I modify my statement
as follows: "In my view, the decision was made because the
candidates were not qualified due to a lack of sufficient experience in
802."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday,
March 15, 2003 4:07 PM
Subject: RE:
[802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
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
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.
|