| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
All,
Thanks to everyone who participated in this ballot. Your time and effort are very much appreciated. As previously announced, there will be a comment resolution session tomorrow (1/7). The ballot results and comments are provided before, and will be a topic of the telecon tomorrow.
Regards,
Mat
Voters DNV DIS APP ABS Comments Provided?
---------------------------------------------------------
00 Paul Nikolich DIS YES
01 Mat Sherman DNV
02 Pat Thaler DIS YES
03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
04 Bob O'Hara DIS YES
05 John Hawkins DNV
06 Tony Jeffree DIS YES
07 Bob Grow DIS YES
08 Stuart Kerry DNV
09 Bob Heile DNV
10 Roger Marks DIS YES
11 Mike Takefman DNV
12 Mike Lynch DNV
13 Steve Shellhammer DIS YES
14 Jerry Upton DIS YES
15 Ajay Rajkumar DNV
16 Carl Stevenson DIS YES
---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---+++---
TOTALS DNV DIS APP ABS
total: -08- -09- -00- -00-
Ballot Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Lemon" <JLemon@luminous.com>
Via Mike Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Tue 12/7/2004 9:49 PM
I recommend approval of this revision only after the following two items have been corrected.
7.1.2.1: I see no reason to limit this position to one person. Change "one person" to "_a person or persons_" and strike "_4. _- limited to a single position".
7.1.3: The penultimate sentence seems to disallow a member from resigning. Change "unless removed with cause" to "unless removed with cause or removed by resignation".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net] Mon 12/6/2004 12:59 PM
I vote disapprove with the following comment. Accepting my comments will result in a change of my vote to approve from disapprove.
1) Several of the sub bullets in the 'Qualifications' section of 7.1.2.1 aren't qualifications but 'restrictions' or 'rights'. Delete 'Qualifications' and replace it with 'Conditions of the position are:' (or something equivalent.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob O'Hara [bob@airespace.com] Mon 1/3/2005 3:11 PM
I vote "no" on this ballot. My comments on the P&P change are attached. If the comments are addressed to my satisfaction, I will change my vote to "yes".
(Editor: See comments Merged with Carl's below)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl R. Stevenson [wk3c@WK3C.COM] Mon 1/3/2005 4:22 PM
I also vote "no" on this ballot and have added my comments/questions to Bob's and appended my name to the filename of the attachment.
<<802.0-EC_Membership__Meetings-PP_Revision_ballot (O'Hara+Stevenson).doc>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Tue 1/4/2005 1:41 PM
My "non-voting" vote on "LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC_Membership_&_Meetings"
DISAPPROVE, my vote will change to approve upon satisfactory resolution of the issues mentioned below.
CURRENT TEXT:
7.1.2.1 Member Emeritus
The chair may appoint one person with appropriate qualifications to this non-voting EC position. The position may also be left vacant. Confirmation and reconfirmation for this position are that same as for other appointed positions.
Qualifications for the position are:
1. based on long years of prior distinguished service on EC
2. - non voting participant
3. - a person must be nominated and elected by the EC to fill the position
4. - limited to a single position
5. - position expires at the next regular EC election
SHOULD BE:
7.1.2.1 Member Emeritus
The chair may appoint a person with appropriate qualifications to this EC position. The position may also be left vacant. Confirmation and reconfirmation for this position are that same as for other appointed positions.
Qualifications for the position are at the discretion of the chair and the EC and are to be based on long years of prior distinguished service on EC
Features of this position are:
1. - non voting participant of the EC
2. - a person must be nominated and elected by the EC to fill the position
3. - limited to a single position
4. - position expires at the next regular EC election
RATIONALE
Current text has redundancies and most of the items enumerated in the qualifications are, in fact, not qualifications, but rather features of the job.
CURRENT TEXT
7.1.7.1 Succession in case of failed elections or confirmations
...until such time as election concerns are addressed.
SHOULD BE
7.1.7.1 Succession in case of failed elections or confirmations
...until such time as election concerns are addressed and resolved.
RATIONALE
Just addressing the issue does not mean that the issue is resolved, it only means that it has been confronted.
7.1.3 Reaffirmation
COMMENT ON CURRENT TEXT
It is not clear to me that reaffirmation by the membership is always the best method. This has been particularly true in the past with TAGs where the membership has fallen to a very small number and the activity level has dropped. It is not clear to me prescisely what the appropriate solution is. I offer the following for your consideration: "For the purposes of reaffirmation of TAG Chairs, each voting member of the EC shall (or even "may"*) be considered to be a voting member each TAG."
* the shall vs. may is my attempt to keep the full membership of the EC out of the calculation of the denominator. Other proposed text is welcome.
7.1.5.2 Meetings by Teleconference
OPPOSITION
I am opposed to this provision as it effectively constitutes a mechanism for closed meetings. There is no provision requiring that the notice be made to the full constituency of 802. Therefore any such meeting is effectively a secret meeting with respect to the body of 802.
I look forward to our discussions to satisfactorily resolve all of these issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com] Tue 1/4/2005 3:18 PM
Disapprove
Comment 1. I find the Member Emeritus change inconsistent in style, inconsistent in technical content and cumbersome. Of the qualifications, only one is actually a qualification for the position, the others are either redundant or contradictory with the preceding paragraph.
Comment 2. I also find the change to 7.1.3 a bit messy.
Comment 3. The current confirmation language is deficient and we can also fix that by doing the Member Emeritus change right. (I don't think it was intended that the positions in item b must be confirmed, but not the 2nd vice chair of item c.)
I recommend that the complete change be accomplished by:
A. Insert the following item in the list of 7.1.2 (and reletter as required):
d) The LMSC Chair may appoint one person with appropriate qualification to the non-voting EC position of Member Emeritus. The position may also be left vacant. As qualification for this position, the appointee shall have many years of prior distinguished service on the EC.
B. Delete the second paragraph of item b in 7.1.2.
C. Change 7.1.3 to read:
Confirmation and Affirmation
All appointed or elected members of the Executive Committee must be confirmed or affirmed by the Executive Committee. All members of the Executive Committee are confirmed or affirmed upon initial appointment or election and at the first Plenary session of each even numbered year. Upon confirmation or affirmation, a member maintain their position until the subsequent first Plenary session of an even numbered year unless they resign or are removed for cause.
Comment 4. 7.1.7.1, last line, change "EC Chair" to "LMSC Chair". Though the LMSC Chair and EC Chair are defined in 7.1.2 to be the same, the rules use LMSC Chair 23 times, EC Chair 2 times (one being IEEE 802 EC Chair) and 802 Chair 2 times. Please use the dominant qualifier LMSC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK] Tue 1/4/2005 4:32 PM
Disapprove.
Comments:
As Geoff rightly points out, bullets 2 through 5 are features of the Emeritus position, not qualifications for it. I almost go along with Geoff's re-wording of that section, except for the observation that, if one were to be meticulous in ones interpretation of the qualificatiojn sentence, the only "long year" is the Leap Year, which makes no sense at all. Also, not clear to me what "distinguished" adds to this qualification, given the many possible meanings of distinguished (e.g., "has grey hair" or "different from xxx"). Hence, I would suggest re-wording Geoff's re-worded sentence:
"Qualifications for the position are at the discretion of the chair and the EC and are to be based on long years of prior distinguished service on EC."
thusly:
"Qualifications for the position are at the discretion of the chair and the EC and are to be based on many years of prior service on the SEC."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Jeffree [tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK] Tue 1/4/2005 4:38 PM
Actually, there is a further problem with 7.1.2.1. The opening sentence states:
"The chair may appoint one person with ...etc."
whereas bullet 3 (2 in Geoff's version) states:
"3. - a person must be nominated and elected by the EC to fill the position"
These are contradictory. I believe the bullet 3 version is what we agreed to do when this was discussed in November. Hence the first sentence should read:
"The EC may elect a person with appropriate qualifications to this EC position."
(And by the way, are we the EC this week, or the SEC? Just curious...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org] Tue 1/4/2005 5:51 PM
I vote Disapprove, with the following comments:
(1) I object the first sentence of 7.1.7.1: "In case of questions of the validity of an election, the person last holding the position will continue to serve until such time as election concerns are addressed."
It is, in my opinion, ludicrous to invalidate an election because "questions" had been raised regarding its validity.
Remedy: Change the first sentence of 7.1.7.1 to: "In case an election is not confirmed by the EC, the person last holding the position will continue to serve until confirmation of the new officer is complete."
(2) 7.1.7.1 is numbered incorrectly, since the current P&P includes a subclause 7.1.7.1. Also, the header doesn't fully match the content.
Remedy: instead of being a standalone clause, add the text of 7.1.7.1, as corrected and without the header, as the third paragraph of 7.2.2, which describes the election and confirmation of the WG Chair.
(3) Instead of simply extending 7.1.3 ("Reaffirmation"), we should correct the existing text, which says: "All members of the Executive Committee are reaffirmed at the first Plenary session of each even numbered year. The Working Group and TAG chairs are reaffirmed by their representative groups while other members of the Executive Committee are reaffirmed in the Executive Committee meeting." The sentences are false: EC members are sometimes NOT affirmed. In any case, we should avoid using the word "affirm", which is not used elsewhere in the P&P. Furthermore, the content regarding WG and TAG chairs is completely redundant with 7.2.2 and should be stricken to avoid the requirement to compare and contrast two different subclauses covering the same topic. Also, there is no need to talk about "reaffirmation", since elections and appointments are described elsewhere, the only purpose is to describe the ending of the membership term.
Remedy: Change the title of 7.1.3 to "Expiration of Membership Term".
Change the first two sentences of 7.1.3 to: "The term of each Executive Committee member expires at the end of the first Plenary session of each even numbered year."
(4) The new material added to 7.1.3 serves no purpose, except to specify the possibility of "removal with cause". there is no defined procedure for removal, so the new material is completely useless.
[The current P&P define a process for a WG to hold an election before the term expires.]
Remedy: Delete last two sentence of 7.1.3.
(5) Regarding 7.1.5.2 ("Meetings by Teleconference"), I don't think we need them and I am opposed to holding them. They might make sense in an emergency, but they couldn't be used in an emergency because of the 30-day notice required in this rule. The rule also fails to specify who is entitled to call such a meeting, and on what grounds.
A better issue to address regarding telephone meetings is a provision to allow telephone participation in EC meetings by members who are ill, etc.
Remedy: Delete 7.1.5.2. At the end of the first paragraph of 7.1.5, add "Members of the Executive Committee may participate in and vote in EC meetings by telephone if unable to attend due to illness or other extraordinary circumstance."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shellhammer, Stephen J [stephen.j.shellhammer@intel.com] Tue 1/4/2005 7:38 PM
I vote No. I will change my vote to a Yes if the following issues are addressed.
Member Emeritus
Under qualification there were several items that are not qualification of the candidate
Please modify the text to include a section on qualifications of the candidate, the process of appointment of the position and the restrictions on the position.
Reaffirmation
The text currently states “The Working Group and TAG chairs are reaffirmed by their representative groups while other members of the Executive Committee are reaffirmed in the Executive Committee meeting.” My interpretation of this is that the EC does not reaffirm the WG and TAG chairs (it is just done in the WG and TAG), however, traditionally the EC does reaffirm the WG and TAG chairs after the WG and TAG reaffirms. I would recommend we either change the test of the P&P or change our operating procedure so that they are consistent with one another.
Meeting of Teleconference
I am unclear what it takes to pass a vote in a teleconference. A quorum of 50% must be present. Does that imply that if more than 50% of those present vote on something then it passes? Then we would only need potentially a little over 25% of voting members to approve a vote. Or does the vote require over 50% of all voting members, both present and not present. Please just clarify so there is no confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry1upton@aol.com Tue 1/4/2005 9:11 PM
I disapprove.
Comments:
7.1.2.1 Member Emeritus
I do not support adding a section in the P&P for a Member Emeritus position. There is no need for this P&P change. If Chair wants help, then the same result can be accomplished by a simple majority motion for a temporary position. The temporary position could be two Plenary periods. The Chair ruled in November that such a motion was valid and it was passed. Our last discussion of the P&P covered the desire for streamlining the P&P not adding unnecessary sections.
7.1.5.2 Meetings by Teleconference
I do not support having EC meetings by teleconference. It effectively creates closed meetings. 802 members now know when the current EC meetings are held. It is during a week when they are devoting their efforts to 802. Even having a large notice period for the teleconference meeting would place an additional burden on the 802 members to attend another meeting.
I do support the other changes if they include the comments by O'Hara and Stevenson.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pat_thaler@agilent.com Wed 1/5/2005 7:37 PM
I appologize for this being late. Catching up on the new year.
I vote Disapprove.
On 7.1.2.1 I agree with Bob O's comment that most of the items in the qualification list are features of the office, not qualifications for the position. All of the items are already covered by the text above (some are covered by the statement that confirmation and reconfirmation are the same as for other appointed positions but the term should perhaps be Reaffirmation or Affirmation because that is the term in 7.1.3 (see comment on 7.1.3).
7.1.7.1 I'm concerned that this provision moves us from the frying pan to the fire. "In cases of questions of the validity of an election" is vague or overly broad. Can a mere raising of a question by anyone bring this provision into force? That allows too much opening for a minority to raise havoc. This rule should only be added if we can accompany it with some standard for judging an election in doubt. For example, one might state that for this provision to take effect they executive committee must receive a written complaint detailing the flaws in the election and must have a majority vote on whether the complaint is substantive enough to justify the action. Perhaps the setting aside of election results should require a supermajority (2/3) of the executive committee (because it seems likely that the flaws should be very clear cut and substantive to justify the action of setting aside a vote).
The last sentence doesn't seem to fit the rest of the text. The prior text doesn't mention confirmation and already specifies who should fill the position. Perhaps it should be: If there is no person in the succession available to serve, the position may be left vacant ....
7.1.3 This section uses the term reaffirmation, but 7.1.2 used "confirmation" We should normalize to use either affirmation/reaffirmation or confirmation/reconfirmation but not both.
7.1.5.2 Something is missing. There needs to be a statement of who can call such a meeting. I think it should be the same as for calling an email motion: the chair or the chair's designee (normally a vice-chair).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pat_thaler@agilent.com Wed 1/5/2005 9:01 PM
Geoff,
I was somewhat concerned about this as well. I felt it was somewhat covered by 7.1.5 "Executive Committee meetings are open to observers."
Therefore, the conference will need extra ports to accomodate observers.
After that it comes down to the issue of do we need to say that working group chairs should forward the notice to their groups or is it enough that people can choose to observe the exec reflector through its archive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PreBallot Comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Fri 11/19/2004 4:39 PM
I was highly distressed by a vote of 6/4/4 today on forwarding a PAR.
It seems like a bad idea for members of the EC to be able to stand back from their duty to judge whether or not a PAR or Draft should go forth to the SA Standards Board for approval.
Therefore I would like to enter the following comment on Mat's proposed text for EC voting which is being balloted:
Add the following text:
"All votes taken by the EC to forward projects or drafts to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for approval shall require approval by a majority of the voting membership of the EC."
I would appreciate your support.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
_____________________________________________
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 12:16 AM
To: 'STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org'
Cc: 'steve_mills@hp.com'; 'r.pritchard@ieee.org'; 'g.robinson@computer.org'; 'John Walz'; 'James.W.Moore@ieee.org'; 'm.nielsen@ieee.org'; 'd.ringle@ieee.org'
Subject: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ EC_Membership_&_Meetings
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on EC Membership and Meetings. This ballot was approved at the Friday November 19, 2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.
Ballot Duration: 12/5/2004 - 1/5/2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your groups, and invite them to comment through you.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
<< File: 802.0-EC_Membership_&_Meetings-P&P_Revision_ballot.doc >>
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.802.0-EC_Membership__Meetings-PP_Revision_ballot (O'Hara+Stevenson).doc