Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting rights
James,
Thanks for your response. I think you have convinced me about the need
for the UC-EC to exist till the exceptional process in the 802.20 WG is
undone.
But I do not think, I'm convinced that the data exists for undoing the
exceptional process in the 802.20 WG.
Thanks & best regards,
jose
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:09 PM
> To: 802 SEC
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> voting rights
>
> Jose
>
> There is a connection between the UC-EC and the bloc voting
> method in 802.20. 802.20 is not operating in entity voting,
> which has defined methods and rules. Instead, a different
> method was imposed on the group to handle the issue of
> dominance by groups in 802.20. This requires the UC-EC to
> group voters into groups based on affiliation, which is
> different from the method used for entity voting.
>
> Without the UC-EC, there is no group to do the grouping into
> blocks and to handle the issue of dominance. Thus, the UC-EC
> cannot be dissolved until we return 802.20 to its normal state.
>
> The EC has discussed in the past dissolving the UC-EC. On
> November 16, 2007, there was a motion requesting that the
> "NC-EC" be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is approved by
> SASB. Most recently, when we held the vote to determine if
> the new members of the EC were conflicted, the issue of
> getting rid of the UC-EC was brought up as well.
>
> 802.20 did not select the current method for voting, it was
> imposed upon the group. Therefore, in my view, the right
> thing to do is to remove the extraordinary procedures that
> have been imposed on the group and then let the group decide
> its future going forward.
>
> Will there be dominance by a group or groups going forward in
> 802.20? I can't predict the future, but the 802 EC can deal
> with that issue if it arises in the future.
>
> James Gilb
>
> Puthenkulam, Jose P wrote:
> > Dear James,
> >
> > As some how, one of my key questions has been ignored in the
> > discussion, I will try to re-iterate it again, with the
> hope that some
> > clarification will be provided. I'm addressing you, as you are the
> > mover of the motion.
> >
> > There was some "cause" for which, the UC-EC proposed a
> modified method
> > of voting in 802.20 WG . Has the UC-EC or the full EC
> determined that
> > the circumstances in the group are different now for which the
> > previous action can be revoked.
> >
> > So far, other than the motion being made, I've not seen a clear
> > articulation of the basis for why this motion is being made.
> >
> > If this is motion is primarily with a view for dissolving
> the UC-EC, I
> > do not see any connection between that and this motion,
> other than the
> > fact that the UC-EC did make the original decision to change the
> > voting method in 802.20 WG.
> >
> > I personally feel, Mark suggestions to have a straw poll or
> pose the
> > question to the 802.20 WG are good ones. Or else the 802
> UC-EC or full
> > EC needs to clarify whether the conditions in the 802.20 WG have
> > changed to warrant this motion. Has this been done?
> >
> > Thanks & best regards,
> > jose
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Puthenkulam, Jose P
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:20 AM
> >> To: 802 SEC
> >> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
> >> rights
> >>
> >> Dear James,
> >>
> >> I have a question on this motion.
> >>
> >>> On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20
> >> to be based
> >>> on entity affiliation.
> >> As per this point, I'm assuming there was some "cause" for which,
> >> this action was taken by the UC-EC. Has the UC-EC
> determined that the
> >> circumstances in the group are different now? For which
> the previous
> >> action can be revoked.
> >>
> >> Because from Dec 2007 (I guess the year is a typo in your
> >> email) SASB minutes it seems only the oversight responsibility was
> >> transferred to the 802 EC.
> >>
> >> Also the EC motion from Nov 2007 (I'm guessing this is
> another year
> >> typo) only requests the NC-EC to be dissolved, so can one draw the
> >> conclusion from that motion that the circumstances in the
> 802.20 WG
> >> has changed? Because even if the NC-EC is dissolved it only shifts
> >> the oversight responsibility to the full EC.
> >>
> >> My suggestion for this would be that the 802.20 WG pass a motion
> >> explicitly requesting this at the July plenary and then
> the EC take
> >> action. I would think this is a more orderly way of proceeding.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to know maybe, if the 802.20 WG has already
> requested
> >> this change? If they have, then this might be a non-issue.
> >>
> >> Thanks & best regards,
> >> jose
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----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 4:37 AM
> >>> To: 802 SEC
> >>> Subject: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual
> >> voting rights
> >>> 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.