RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
Roger -
If the SEC *upholds* an election, I believe that there is an equal
requirement for the decision to be credible.
If I went to my WG and explained to them that:
a) The 802 operating rules themselves with regard to membership are not
credible due to the number of inconsistent, contradictory, and ambiguous
statements that they make, and
b) The rules chosen for the conduct of the election, while undoubtedly
applied in good faith, resulted in more than doubling the voting membership
of the group due to a large influx of "newbies" at the meeting; and
c) The resultant set of elected officers didn't have any experience of the
previous working of the Study Group,
I am pretty sure I know what the reaction would be, and I am pretty certain
that the word "credible" would not appear in the subsequent discussion
without being accompanied by the prefix "in".
Regards,
Tony
At 03:02 20/03/2003 -0800, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Pat,
>
>No, I have not said that I am uncomfortable with the idea of the SEC
>exercising its responsibility to affirm elections.
>
>However, if the SEC overturns an election, I believe that it should state
>a reason and that the reason should be credible.
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 6:38 PM -0700 03/03/19, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
>>Roger,
>>
>>If there were no valid reasons for the SEC to reject choice of officers
>>of a working group, there would be no reason to require the SEC to affirm
>>such an election. I can't speak to the decision made in this particular
>>case, but your arguments seem to assert that you aren't comfortable with
>>the idea that the SEC has exercised it responsibility to affirm the
>>candidates. I disagree with that position. The reason for requiring
>>affirmation is because 802 SEC does have a responsibility to pass
>>judgement on the results of the election. If that wasn't the case, one
>>would have an appeals process for election irregularities rather than an
>>affirmation process.
>>
>>That said, lack of sufficient experience in 802 seems a bit weak as a
>>basis for rejecting the election results. Some previous chairs have had
>>little more than the experience gained while running their study group.
>>Granted that having so little experience was a handicap in running their
>>groups and they required extra mentoring to get over the bumps in the
>>road so it isn't an ideal situation. Perhaps the answer is that 802 is
>>raising the desired qualifications based on past experience.
> From what I've read on the SEC list so far, it appears that in this
>>case process concerns were a substantial portion of the reason for the
>>SEC vote.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Pat
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:50 AM
>>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>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
>
Regards,
Tony