Re: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July
I am strongly, stridently, opposed to voting by organization or
asking people to declare allegiance.
What next: we ask Working Group members to disclose their investment
portfolios, and those of their brother-in-law? Maybe a blue-ribbon
SEC commission (the one that is supposed to "analyze the results")
can interview each working group member and decide what in which
interest group pigeonhole they belong?
One member, one vote. That's the way we do business in 802.
Roger
>Hi Everyone,
>
>This is an outshoot from my WG initial membership interpretation
>effort. An issue I have heard raised a number of times from LMSC EC
>members is the question of what procedure should be followed for
>elections by 802.20 in July. Personally, I think it is
>inappropriate for us to "force" them to use a specific procedure.
>On the other hand, clearly people in 802.20 are wondering "what they
>can change" that would improve the chances of their officers being
>confirmed next time around. Based on reflector discussions to date,
>the election procedure itself seems to have been a concern at least
>to some EC members. Given that, I think it might make sense if we
>"recommend" a procedure that might address the concerns of these EC
>members. In my mind we could make a motion recommending a
>particular procedure, and have this presented to 802.20 at the
>upcoming interim. Mike Takefman has put forward the most detailed
>election procedure I have seen suggested to date. Extracting from
>one of Mike's recent e-mails that procedure would be:
>
>Everyone who attended 75% of the initial session gets to vote in
>July. All consultants should declare who their client is. The
>elections (and probably every other vote) should be by roll call.
>The SEC should then analyze the results as both 1 organization 1
>vote and straight and determine if any difference in result would
>occur. If the vote is reverse on a 1 company 1 vote basis, then
>that vote should be taken as final.
>
>Personally, I'm okay with everything but the last step. From
>5.1.4.4 of the LMSC P&P I believe the WG Chair's job is to:
>
> "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an
>organization, and, if so, treat that organizations' vote as one
>(with the approval of the Executive Committee)."
>
>I'm not sure if the last step in Mike's process is the best way to
>do that. What do other people think?
>
>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