RE: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July
Mat,
We don't have rules against block voting. What we have is a statement
that the "Working Group Chair has the authority 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)."
People from the same organization tend to vote alike. Is this a
shocking statement? Is this something we need to be embarrassed
about? I don't think so.
There is no burden of proof on individuals to show that they are
voting with an independent mind, and there is no burden of proof on
organizations to prove that their members think independently. People
from the same organization are allowed to vote the same way. This is
not against the rules!
A Working Group Chair will not find it easy to conclude that a group
is "dominated by an organization". And that's the way it should be.
This rule is, and should be, reserved for extraordinary cases. I
don't even know what kind of cases they are; I can imagine only a
few. Maybe a company gets over 25% of the membership and consistently
holds the Working Group over a barrel.
And, as I have said before, I still believe that, if we want people
to act independently of their organization, we ought not to take roll
call votes. People won't cross the boss if there is a written record
of it.
Roger
>Roger,
>
>I agree as do we all - One member, one vote. The problem is when
>members vote as organizations. This is loosely termed in our rules as
>"block voting". How can this be evaluated without data to do so? This
>is not about counting votes as organizations. It is about collecting
>data so that we know the members are voting as individuals and not
>organizations. How do you propose we account for block voting if we
>don't know what organizations people represent?
>
>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
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 12:35 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: 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