Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights

Carl
It is true that we have always had individual model. Someone pointed out that entity voting is possible under the rules, even though we have never done it. I was just relaying that fact, not advocating for it (I prefer individual voting).
The motion I have proposed returns us to individual voting for 802.20, a change from bloc voting which was imposed on the group without their approval.
What 802.20 does once we have returned them to individual voting is up to them, subject to approval of the 802 EC and the SA. The 802 EC may reject a request to create an entity voting project, but that would be the subject of a future motion and discussion. 

James Gilb

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

James,

The EC has voted in the past that, as a policy of 802, PARs shall stick to
the individual model, not the entity model.

.20 was an unusual circumstance and a modified form of entity voting was
foisted on that WG by dictate from on high.

I am not sure that the rest of the EC will support a general exemption that
deviates from the "individual model only" policy that has been established
in the past.

Carl

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 8:52 PM
To: 802 SEC
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights 

Wow, I am having some trouble typing here.
In the motion passed on July 16, 2007, "shall e as" should have been "shall be as" 

Instead of:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting. 

I meant to say:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting, it can decide to do that by a vote of the Working Group, subject to approval by the 802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as appropriate. 

I am looking for a second and/or suggestions to help with the wording.

James Gilb

James Gilb wrote:

All

Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).

June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and returning all oversight to the EC.
I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed
session, July
16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following 
motion was approved:
"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working group shall be conducted on the basis of entity
affiliation, with one
vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as
determined by the
802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their primary affiliation and other information available to the OC."
It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
(apparently
mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the
IEEE SA web
pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may require some clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the 
802.20 P&P and OM.
It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity
voting process, 
it used one based on voting blocs.
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with
entity voting 
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original
state and to
allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of
action, including, 
if they wish, to switch to entity voting.

James Gilb
PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me
to clarify the 
history and status of 802.20.

James Gilb wrote:

All
I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will
determine the 
valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).

Rationale:
On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20
to be based 
on entity affiliation.
SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in 
December 2007.

Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
Committee with an offer of continuing support for 
situations where the

802 EC wishes to seek our help."
The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from 
November 2006

requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is
approved by the SASB."

The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.

Motion
-------------
Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual 
voting at the
beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20
P&P, and 
superior rules.
--------------
Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do
not explicitly
deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example, what
constitutes
an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various individuals
were grouped 
by the oversight committee into a single entity vote.)
If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting
group, we
should take to the time to write the P&P to support this.
In the mean 
time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.

James Gilb

----------
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.