RE: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal
I totally agree with Howard.
We are a group of individual human beings, not corporate
representatives. It's not our position to judge why someone wants to
participate in a project and whether or not they have corporate
reasons to do so. We shouldn't make decisions based on what we
speculate people's motives may be.
When I came to the SEC, most of us seemed to agree that we need to
treat people as individuals and act as individuals. Now, we seem to
keep forgetting that. I have recently seen a dramatic cultural change
in the SEC, and I find it shocking and scary. If we continue down
this corporate road, we will find ourselves embedded in a morass.
Let's remember our successful track record and stick to our system!
There are other, more appropriate, venues to develop corporate
standards.
Roger
>Howard,
>
>I think that paying the expenses would be appropriate. In general I
>agree that one should only accept a position that one is able to
>support and many people "donate" (either on their own nickle or with
>corporate support) their time and travel expenses. These people are
>going to meetings of groups where they are invested in the result.
>The investment may be some combination of commercial/financial,
>altruistic, and sentimental reasons - but in some way they are
>participating because they are choosing to be there.
>
>We have a situation where 802 wants to put a neutral third party in
>as interim chair while things get sorted out in a new working group.
>They are looking for someone who by definition has no personal or
>corporate reason to go to the meeting. In the case where we have
>someone who will be going to a meeting solely because 802 requested
>his/her services there so that in the absence of that request, the
>person would not be going to the meeting, then it is appropriate to
>pay the travel expenses.
>
>This should be a very rare situation. Generally, we should only be
>doing projects where there are participants willing and able to fund
>their own volunteer efforts. In the current situation, we have such
>participants but 802 is not ready to use their services. Therefore,
>I think it is up to 802 to fund the participant of the person that
>802 asks to fill in.
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard Frazier [mailto:millardo@dominetsystems.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:58 PM
>To: Paul Nikolich
>Cc: Jerry1upton@aol.com; IEEE802
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal
>
>
>
>
>I think it is entirely inappropriate for the SEC to
>expend LMSC funds for a particular individual to travel to a working group
>meeting if that individual is a volunteer. There may
>be cases where it is appropriate to pay the travel expenses of an
>individual, but this isn't one of them.
>
>I acknowledge that my opinion is based in part on the fact that
>I typically travel to at least 10 IEEE standards meetings per year,
>including plenaries, interims, and StB meetings. All of my travel
>expenses have been "donated" to the cause from my personal funds.
>I have been doing this for the last two years without any expectation
>of reimbursement or compensation.
>
>I am of the opinion that a volunteer should not accept a position of
>responsibility unless they are able to support their time and travel.
>The members of the IEEE Board of Directors receive compensation
>for their travel expenses, but the members of the IEEE-SA, from the
>BoG on down to us plebes, do not.
>
>On the other hand, if the members of a WG are willing to pay for an
>individual's travel expenses to an interim meeting, then I would not be
>opposed to them collecting funds (through registration fees) for that
>purpose.
>I am strongly opposed to using LMSC funds for this purpose.
>
>Howard Frazier
>
>Paul Nikolich wrote:
>
>> Dear SEC,
>>
>> In order to put Jerry's response in context, the tentative proposal
>> that was discussed with Geoff, Mark, Jeryy and myself last Thursday
>> afternoon is copied below.
>>
>> I would appreciate informal feedback from the SEC members if they:
> >
>> 1) support the general approach
>>
>> 2) support allocating funds (up to $5000) to support Geoff's travel
>> expenses to the 802.20 Interim meeting
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --Paul Nikolich
>>
>> Chairman LMSC
>>
>>
>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>
>> All,
>>
>> These are the steps we discussed during the meeting March 20, 2003
>>
>> 1) Geoff is committed to continue as interim chair under the following
>> conditions
>>
>> 1.1) His main responsibility is to act as the 'vote of 802.20' for all
>> formal SEC decisions.
>>
>> 1.2) His second responsibility is to appoint 'interim vice chairs' and
>> define their responsibilities
>>
>> 1.3) His third responsibility is to act as a mentor for the interim
>> vice chairs and new officers (when elected)
>>
>> 1.5) His fourth responsibility is to preside over the election of
>> officers for 802.20 at the July plenary
>>
>> 1.6) The interim vice-chairs will shoulder all of the work in managing
>> the day-to-day operations of the 802.20 WG, Geoff will provide
>> oversight and guidance only. In corporate parlance, the interim
>> vice-chairs will share the Chief Operating Officer responsibilities
>> for the WG; the interim chair will be the Chief Executive Officer for
>> the WG.
>>
>> 2) The interim vice chairs will be Klerer and Upton
>>
>> 2.1) this depends on if Klerer and Upton agree to being so appointed
>>
>> 2.2) this depends on confirmation from the SEC of the interim vice chairs
>>
>> 2.3) the interim vice chairs will manage the detailed day-to-day
>> operations of the WG. The interim chair and vice-chairs will figure
>> out how to divide the work among the interim vice chairs.
>>
>> 2.4) the first responsibility of the interim vice chairs is to publish
>> the proposed work plan for 802.20 and decide (with Geoff) on the
>> agenda of the May interim meeting.
>>
>> 3) 802.20 constraints
>>
>> 3.1) Membership will be gained and retained per the '2 out of previous
>> 4 session participation' requirement (as per the interim chair's prior
>> application of that rule).
>>
>> 3.2) Until elected/confirmed 802.20 officers are in place, all
>> external communications and actions from 802.20 shall be approved by
>> the SEC.
>>
>> 3.3) no PARs no liaison statements, no press statements
>>
>> Action items:
>>
>> - Jerry needs to get confirmation he can accept the interim vice chair
>> position
>>
>> - There will be an announcement prior to each session (and placed on
>> the attendance book) that by signing in attendees are confirming 75%
>> presence in the meeting
>>
>> - Paul will informally poll the SEC if it is:
>>
>> o willing to support the entire approach
>>
>> o Allocate $5000 for Geoff's travel to Singapore
>>
>> o Waive the Singapore interim meeting fee
>>
>> - Geoff will publish his (802.3 based) membership rules
>>
>>
>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Jerry1upton@aol.com <mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com>
>>
>> To:p.nikolich@ieee.org <mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>
>>
>> Cc:tak@cisco.com <mailto:tak@cisco.com> ; r.b.marks@ieee.org
>> <mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org> ; bob_heile@yahoo.com
>> <mailto:bob_heile@yahoo.com> ; stuart.kerry@philips.com
>> <mailto:stuart.kerry@philips.com> ; bob.grow@intel.com
>> <mailto:bob.grow@intel.com> ; tony@jeffree.co.uk
>> <mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk> ; jim.lansford@mobilian.com
>> <mailto:jim.lansford@mobilian.com> ; carl.stevenson@ieee.org
>> <mailto:carl.stevenson@ieee.org> ; everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>> <mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com> ; bob.ohara@ieee.org
>> <mailto:bob.ohara@ieee.org> ; billq@attglobal.net
>> <mailto:billq@attglobal.net> ; mjsherman@research.att.com
>> <mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com> ; gthompso@nortelnetworks.com
>> <mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 4:37 PM
> >
>> Subject: Response to 802.20 Proposal
>>
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>> I thank you and Geoff calling Thursday to review your proposal.
>> Your proposal would:
>> - - appoint Mark Klerer and myself as interim working Vice Chairs
>> under Geoff
>> - - require voting members who became voting members at the Dallas
>> meeting to
>> also attend both the Singapore interim meeting and the San
>> Francisco plenary
>> meeting to remain voting members for the July plenary meeting so
>> as to vote in
>> the new elections
>> - - provides no roles for the elected Vice Chairs.
>>
>> After reviewing Paul's minutes of the call and speaking with a
>> number of 802.20 members, I respectfully reject the suggested
>> approach. More work is needed to refine the approach. The
>> refinements and work should take into account:
>> - - disenfranchisement of existing voting 802.20 members in
>> contradiction to existing
>> procedures
>> - - the creating of a Singapore interim meeting attendance
>> requirement that may be
>> particularly onerous given our industry's financial situation;
>> this has the
>> appearance of being arbitrary
>> - - lack of a reason to not seat the elected officers on the basis
>> there is no rule
>> requiring 802 experience; in your line by line review of the
>> procedures before the
>> election no mention of this requirement was covered, even though the
>> nominees were know for at least a day prior to the election
>> - - past precedent in 802.16 for seating a Working Group Chair
>> with limited 802
>> experience
>> - - unclear basis for Mark Klerer's role since he was not elected
>> - - and no roles for the elected Vice Chairs who will also need to
>> get 802 experience
>> in managing the group.
>>
>> By obtaining inputs and views from a large set of 802.20 members
>> including the two elected Vice Chairs, we can together create a
>> solution for moving the group forward. Though traveling next week,
>> I will continue to seek further inputs from a wide selection of
>> 802.20 members.
>>
>> A conference call with you and the Executive Committee with a goal
>> of developing a revised proposal is a suggested next step. I will
>> ensure my availability anytime on April 1 through April 4th. If
>> these dates do not work for you, I will try to be available as
>> best I can at other times so as to solve this problem in an
>> expeditious manner.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Jerry Upton
>>