Re: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal
I have a question to all, since I wasn't there. When Geoff volunteered to
go, was the subject of reimbursement brought up.
If it was not, then it is difficult to justify bringing up this issue after
the fact.
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: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Re: Response to 802.20 Proposal
>
> Roger -
>
> I think that it is a rather different situation when we (the SEC) ask
> someone to do a job for which they would not normally volunteer. Geoff is,
> to a greater or lesser extent, a "pressed man" with regard to the interim
> chairmanship that has been thrust upon him. That is, with respect, not the
> same circumstance that brought you to the SEC.
>
> If we want him to do the job, and if helping him with expenses incurred is
> one of the conditions of his acceptance, then so be it.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 15:17 03/04/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> >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 prio
r
> >>> 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
> >
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>