RE: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation
Mat -
As it is an established WG, the problem doesn't occur. And I believe the
formation of 802.1 pre-dates the existing rules by a good few years -
also pre-dates my involvement in 802 by at least a year or two.
Regards,
Tony
At 09:40 15/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Tony,
Perhaps you have already stated this,
but what do you do in the following situation for your group?
Somebody attends the first WG
meeting. They then don t show up ever again. At what point do
you roll them off the membership?
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: Tony Jeffree
[mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 4:17 AM
To: Paul Nikolich
Cc: IEEE802
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion
for WG Initial membership interpretation
Paul -
I believe that what we are being asked for here is to interpret what the
current membership rules mean; not what they should mean, or what we
might like them to mean in the future, or to second guess their intent.
It is my view that the proposed interpretation does not properly reflect
what the current rules mean, and that (as I have previously indicated)
the only part of the current rules on membership that is not ambiguous,
or contradictory, or open to conflicting interpretation, or just plain
absurd, is the part that states that the Chair has the discretion to
grant membership.
That being the case, I have to vote "disapprove".
Regards,
Tony
At 20:23 14/04/2003 -0400, Paul Nikolich wrote:
Dear SEC,
This is a 15 day SEC email ballot on a Motion to Interpret the LMSC
P&P rule on Working Group Initial Membership as moved by Mat Sherman
and seconded by Geoff Thompson.
The email ballot opens on Monday April 14, 2003 9PM EDT and closes
Thursday April 29, 2003 9PM EDT.
Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly to
me
(p.nikolich@ieee.org).
Regards,
--Paul Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
From:
mjsherman@research.att.com
To: paul.nikolich@att.net
Cc: thompson@ieee.org
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation
Paul,
I wish to formally make a motion concerning the interpretation of the current initial membership rules. The motion I would like to make is as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Motion that until the P&P revision titled "WG membership" being balloted starting March 27th, 2003 is completed (estimated to occur at the end of the July 2003 IEEE 802 Plenary meeting) the line in the LMSC P&P section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention" reading:
Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session meetings.
Should be interpreted as reading:
Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary sessions. (An individual who attains membership by participation and attendance at the first meeting of a new Working Group is assumed to have the right to retain that membership by the granting of credit for 'full virtual attendance' at the plenary session that would be immediately previous to the first working group plenary session.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson helped develop this motion, and has agreed to second it. Note that based on recent discussions it is somewhat different than the motion I said I would first make on the reflector. This motion maximally protects the voting rights of initial members by ensuring retention of their rights through the first 4 plenary sessions. We believe this is the motion that has the greatest chance of success. If this fails, we may want make a second motion which we would want to complete before the end of the upcoming wireless interim session. Since the motion is reasonably concise we would prefer a 15 day ballot period for this interpretation to allow time for a second round if needed.
Regards,
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
Regards,
Tony
Regards,
Tony