Re: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
I sent this note this morning to the SEC reflector and never saw it appear
there, so I am sending it again.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert D. Love" <rdlove@nc.rr.com>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
> As I read through the email string on the 802.20 election I grow
> increasingly concerned that the SEC action has the capability of very
badly
> backfiring on both the SEC and on IEEE 802. I recommend that by our July
> plenary the SEC lay out solid criteria for candidates that will withstand
> the scrutiny of 802 history, as well as a reasonableness standard. If we
do
> not have such a criteria that would clearly void the last election, then I
> recommend the 802 SEC affirm the March elections in July. Even if we do
> develop the criteria, the SEC needs to determine whether it is appropriate
> to have exercised those criteria retroactively.
>
> I have always heard the SEC was supposed to focus primarily on process.
It
> should be clear when the SEC's reach should extend outside that region,
> especially with the regard to a Working Group's choice of its leaders.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
> To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:50 AM
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
>
>
> >
> > I am in Japan, where I've just spent my day in a conference. I can't
> > get away from the 802.20 issue; people here have heard what happened
> > and are asking me why the 802 SEC would invalidate the elections. I
> > still don't know. Since I have nothing better to do here, I'm trying
> > to understand it.
> >
> > I am not comfortable with the SEC Chair's explanation that "the
> > decision was made because the candidates were not qualified due to a
> > lack of sufficient experience in 802." Here is why:
> >
> > (1) I don't recall the issue of 802 experience being mentioned during
> > the SEC meeting.
> >
> > (2) What most strikes me about the explanation is that it focuses not
> > on the process but simply on the results. The SEC Chair is saying
> > that the SEC rejected the 802.20 elections simply because it did not
> > like the outcome; in particular, it did not find the elected
> > candidates to be suitable for the office to which they were elected
> > (because of their lack of 802 experience). My intuition suggests that
> > the SEC would not want to go on record as saying that it invalidated
> > the elections because of the outcome. But maybe I am wrong about this.
> >
> > (3) The SEC voided all three 802.20 elections, not just the one for
> > the 802.20 Chair. I don't recalling hearing any discussion of the
> > candidates for the two Vice Chair positions, only that there were
> > three candidates for each. I don't know which, if any, of the six
> > Vice Chair candidates had 802 experience. Perhaps some SEC members
> > knew more about this, but I don't recall the SEC probing the issue in
> > the meeting. So, I think that the SEC Chair's explanation fails to
> > explain why the SEC voided the two Vice Chair elections.
> >
> > For all I know, it might be that, in one or both Vice Chair
> > elections, none of the three candidates had 802 experience. If that
> > was the case, was there any point in holding the election?
> >
> > (4) There is no 802 or 802.20 rule requiring 802 experience of a
> > Working Group officer. The document "Nominations and Elections of
> > Officers for IEEE Working Group 802.20 at the March 10-13, 2003
> > Meeting" was issued on March 5. That document included the following
> > statement:
> >
> > "Officer Candidate Eligibility
> > Individuals running for office must be members of 802.20. Anyone
> > running for office must, therefore, satisfy the membership
> > requirements by the time the elections are held. In addition
> > candidates for Working Group chair need to be prepared to submit a
> > 'Letter of Support' from their company to the LMSC chair, as
> > specified in the LMSC Rules."
> >
> > If a Working Group announces a specific statement of candidate
> > eligibility, shouldn't individuals be able to accept that those are
> > the conditions? How can it be right to turn around later and say,
> > "No, I'm sorry, but you should have realized that you are, in fact,
> > unacceptable to us."
> >
> > (5) Since Friday morning, I have been hearing this idea of the SEC
> > voiding the 802.20 chair election because the chair-elect was not
> > sufficiently experienced in 802. However, I heard no mention of this
> > issue before the elections. Why did 802 experience become an issue
> > only afterwards? There is an inconsistency here.
> >
> > (6) The election process allows the Working Group to choose the
> > leaders it believes are most suitable. Voters can make their choice
> > based on the criteria they prefer. Presumably, some voters will
> > consider 802 experience before they cast their ballot. However, they
> > will consider other issues also. 802 experience may not be at the
> > top of some people's list, because any new chair will soon attain it
> > anyway. I was named to chair a Study Group at my first 802 Plenary
> > and named to chair a Working Group at my second. I learned the ropes.
> > If we are worried about someone's experience, then let's provide some
> > mentorship.
> >
> >
> > So, I am still unable to understand why the SEC took this
> > extraordinary action that has caused so much surprise around the
> > world. I think the world wants, and deserves, a better explanation. I
> > think the SEC owes one to the members of 802.20, and it's going to
> > need one in order to figure out how to get 802.20 elections that it
> > can accept.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> > At 2:17 PM -0800 03/03/15, Bob O'Hara wrote:
> > >Paul,
> > >
> > >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
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >
> > >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."
> > >
> > >--Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: <mailto:bob@airespace.com>Bob O'Hara
> > >To: <mailto:stds-802-sec@ieee.org>stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > >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
> > >
> > >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
> >
>