Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
G'day Tony
My personal view on the topic of nNA meetings is that 802 and the 802
WGs should aim to have 2/3 of their meetings in nNA locations (like
IETF, WFA, etc), but that the Rome proposal is very poor because of the
room costs.
However, the point of my e-mail was actually an objection to the
assertions, and the accompanying implied threats, that the WG Chairs
have to reflect the view of their TG.
I agree that we cannot validly consider the survey to be equivalent to a
"direction". However, I was just pointing out that the issue was not as
clear cut as some might have thought.
This is obviously a controversial topic. I would suggest that if Rome is
ultimately selected then the EC provide their rationale to the 802
community.
Whatever is decided, the EC needs to develop a plan to improve the
perception of the IEEE as an "international" SDO. This might involve
regular meetings around the world or it might involve something else,
but something needs to be done.
Andrew
BTW My other views related to location are:
* Locations that are primarily holiday destinations should be avoided
because they gives the impression that standards are a "holiday club",
ie Hawaii, Cancun, Fiji, Santorini, Mauritius, Cairns etc should never
be chosen
* Locations should be easily accessible. One measure of accessibility
might be that they can be reached in one plane hop from San Francisco
(which I would guess is the "mode" of our attendance)
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 7:42 PM
To: Andrew Myles (amyles)
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
G'day Andrew -
While in general agreeing with your comments about the inherent conflict
that may exist in a WG Chair's responsibilities, I would suggest that
this particular situation is not representative of the norm. We (the EC)
agreed to conduct a poll, we reviewed the questions that poll would ask,
and we conducted the poll. I believe that there was a reasonable
expectation on the part of those responding to the poll that this
exercise would be more than just collecting one more data point to add
to the pile. And if the vote had been really close
- maybe a few percentage points either way - then sure, the EC should
have weighed the result along with other factors, and come to a
decision. However, with such clear-cut direction from its membership, I
believe the poll results carry far more weight than other
considerations.
I would also question whether the poll results directly represent which
WGs would/would not have passed a directed position motion. It is quite
possible that members that voted one way in the poll would then vote
another way on a directed position - maybe on the basis that if the
Chair asked for clear direction, individuals feel that the guidance to
the Chair should reflect the majority view of the WG regardless of their
personal preference; maybe on the basis that further information became
available between the two votes. The only way to find out for sure is to
run the motion, not to speculate on the basis of some other vote.
Regards,
Tony
At 02:29 22/11/2007, Andrew Myles (amyles) wrote:
>G'day Dave,
>
>On the issue of Rome vs Vancouver I have mixed feelings.
>
>* On one hand, I would like to see more non North American meetings to
>help demonstrate to other organisations, including many/most National
>Bodies within ISO/IEC JTC1, that the IEEE 802 WG's are attempting to be
>more internationally inclusive than they are currently perceived to be.
>
>* On the other hand, I recognise that the proposed location in Rome has
>many negative factors, such as cost and the remoteness of the site from
>the centre of Rome.
>
>However, that is not the topic of this e-mail. Rather, I feel compelled
>to point out a misrepresentation of generally accepted governance
>principles and the responsibilities of the 802 LMSC EC.
>
>Your e-mail strongly suggests that WG Chairs must vote according to the
>will of their WG, as determined by the survey in this case.
>
>In fact, under the P&P the WG Chairs have two responsibilities:
>
>* "act in the best interest of the LMSC as a whole"
>
>* "represent their Working Group on the Executive Committee"
>
>The P&P notes that "these responsibilities are in conflict with each
>other".
>
>In the normal case, the WG Chairs have the authority to make their own
>judgements in resolving any conflict. On this issue, I suspect the WG
>chairs took into account a whole range of factors in determining the
>"best interest of the LMSC as a whole", including the survey and the
>unattractiveness of the Rome location, but weighted the need to be
>perceived to be "international" more highly.
>
>There is a way under the P&P for a WG to remove the WG Chair's
authority
>to make a judgement in "best interest of the LMSC as a whole". This
>requires the WG to approve a "directed position" with a 75% majority.
>However, interestingly, if one considers the survey to be a vote on a
>directed position, only the 802.1 and 802.20 WG Chairs would have been
>"directed" to vote for Vancouver over Rome.
>
>The membership of the WGs do not have to agree with their WG Chair's
>decision, but they do have to respect the WG Chair's right to make
>difficult decisions in the "best interest of the LMSC as a whole" when
>not "directed", particularly as it was the WG who gave the Chair the
>authority to make such difficult judgements by electing him/her as the
>WG Chair.
>
>If you do not think a WG Chair displays good judgement then support an
>alternate candidate at the next election or stand yourself. However,
>please do not make threatening comments related to fiduciary
>responsibility and insurance that have no supporting factual basis.
>
>Andrew
>
>BTW I don't know how Stuart Kerry voted on this particular issue, but I
>am sure he did so in a thoughtful and well considered manner that took
>account of many conflicting factors. I would hope he does the same in
>the motion to rescind the decsion to choose Rome that is likely to
occur
>in the EC
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of David Bagby
>Sent: Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:59 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; STDS-802-11@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>
>Folks,
>I find I rather agree with the sentiments Tony expresses below.
>
>The EC asked, the membership answered, now the EC actions should
reflect
>the membership's stated desire.
>
>The survey results were pretty clear. From the posted survey results:
>
>Only one group (.17) voted to pick Rome over Vancouver - and that vote
>as 4,1. .17 represents 5 people out of the total of 552 that
>participated in answering that survey question.
>
>Only one group (.19) tied - where the vote was 1,1 - that's another 2
>people out of the 552 total.
>
>ALL THE REST OF THE GROUPS VOTED FOR VANCOUVER OVER ROME.
>As did the overall count of 362, 185 for a 66% vote in favor of
>Vancouver - or pretty close to a 2:1 ratio.
>
>I don't see how the data could be much more clear.
>
>Learning from this email thread that one or more EC members argued that
>the survey was flawed simply sounds to me like an excuse for those EC
>members to argue for the result which they had already pre-decided they
>wanted. It may have been "flawed"... (I have no objective way to
measure
>"flawed-ness").
>In any case it is what it was. The EC crafted it and ran it. If it is
>"Flawed" it is so because the EC made it so. Maybe the EC will get
>"better"
>at surveys in the future.
>
>For now, all the available data clearly says Vancouver 2:1 over Rome.
>
>I believe a good argument could be made that the EC members have a
>fiduciary responsibility to the organization, and the members of the
>organization have pretty clearly said what they prefer. Before the EC
>does otherwise, EC members may want to consider that lack of Directors
&
>Officers insurance situation again. That's not a threat, rather an
>attempt to get people to seriously consider the potential consequences
>of their actions.
>
>I also infer from this situation that there are EC members that
had/have
>little or no intention of representing their membership's desires. My
>personal opinion is that if you argued against doing what your group
>voted for, you should be seriously considering resigning. If you don't
>resign, I hope your group rectifies the situation by remembering this
>for you in March elections.
>
>Note that I was not at the Friday Plenary, so I have no idea who the
>prior statement may offend/anger - and it doesn't matter. I feel just
as
>strongly about elected officers representing their membership as those
>that want Rome "as a symbol of nNA, no matter what" apparently feel
>about the March 2009 venue issue.
>
>I also realize that the way "it sounds to me" may not be the way the
>person or persons making the argument intended it - and that does not
>change how it appears - at least to this member.
>
>The act of asking the membership what it wants to do, and then
>attempting to find a way to ignore the response is, well, deplorable.
>People do watch the EC actions. A primary purpose of this email is to
>remind the EC that others do watch what goes on.
>
>I've attached the survey results and cc'd this email to the WG I spend
>the most time participating in (.11). Seems to me 802 needs more light
>shone under this particular rock.
>
>I'm hoping (but don't in fact know one way or the other) that the .11
>chair argued for the position expressed by the .11 WG and the overall
>802 membership.
>
>Dave
>
>____________
>
>David Bagby
>
>email: David.bagby@ieee.org
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:28 AM
>To: wk3c@WK3C.COM
>Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Rome decison
>
>
>Carl -
>
>I guess where we differ is in how we choose to go forward from here.
>
>The EC chose to say "The survey was flawed, so we will ignore its
>results and go to Rome anyway". I didn't agree with that position, and
>voted accordingly. Unfortunately, my viewpoint didn't prevail.
>
>To me, it was our responsibility to make sure the right questions were
>asked in the survey. We failed to do that, for whatever reasons,
despite
>ample opportunity to do so. Shame on us all. However, having asked the
>wrong question, I believe we were stuck with the answer we were given
by
>the 802 membership. To then ignore the survey results seems to me to be
>arrogance in the extreme. The fact that the EC didn't like the answer
>the survey gave isn't sufficient justification for going against it
>IMHO. Just because it fits in with our desire to do NNA meetings
doesn't
>make it the right choice.
>
>As it happens, and for the reasons pointed out by Pat, I think that
>particular Rome venue is a lousy choice anyway, regardless of the price
>issue, and particularly so when compared with Vancouver as an
>alternative.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>At 13:47 21/11/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> >I think you got my point ...
> >
> >If one can book prices in the >=~200/night range now, why in the heck
> >are we being quoted $425-450 (since we pay separately for meeting
space
>
> >and F&B)???
> >
> >This major disconnect is why I believe that the "survey" was flawed
(at
> >best) and the results skewed to the point of being worthless.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.