[802SEC] Kudos

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

Roger (and anyone else that is listening...) -

There certainly ARE statements in the rules that strip a participant of attendance credit, in two cases:

- Failure to respond to 2 out of 3 letter ballots (802 WG P&P 7.2.3); and

- Failure to comply with meeting registration requirements (802 Ops Manual 5.4).

The wording is explicit and unambiguous in both cases IMHO.

However, as Adrian has correctly pointed out, although the 802 WG P&P currently states the requirements for establishment (7.2.1) and retention (7.2.2) of voting rights, it makes no explicit statement of the consequences of failing to meet the retention requirements stated in 7.2.2; these seem to be left as an exercise to the reader. I.e., if you stop attending 802 meetings altogether, but continue to respond to ballots, you clearly don't fall foul of either of the bullet points above, but you do eventually fail the retention criteria; however, whether the consequence of failing the retention criteria is loss of voting, or something else (public humiliation, a slap in the face with a wet fish,...etc) is not stated in our rules at present.

I would suggest that anyone losing voting rights for lack of attendance would therefore have a good appeal case as the rules are currently stated. Therefore, this needs fixing with all speed before we end up in a situation where the WGs can no longer transact business.

Regards,
Tony

On 22 February 2014 23:10, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org> wrote:

Adrian,

Thanks. That figure is worth a thousand email replies.

Basically, someone losing "2 of 4" status would be dropped from the Voter category in one of two distinct conditions:

(a) has participated in 0 of 4
(b) has participated in 1 of 4

It seems that 802.11 practice is to categorize someone in either condition into the state "0 of 4". The problem here is with case (b). An individual who has participated in 1 of 4 sessions is treated as if she had participated in 0 of 4. Essentially, 802.11 erases her remaining valid session participation credit. I don't know why, but, as far as I can tell, this is some kind of penalty for having lost her membership. Then, when she later turns up at a plenary, having validly participated in 2 of 4 per the rules, she is denied membership. This contradicts her rights under the rules ("membership in a WG is established by achieving participation credit at the sessions of the WG for two out of the last four plenary sessions; one duly constituted recent interim ...").

I don't see anything in the rules that allows the WG to strip a participant of validly earned participation credit and deny membership on those grounds. That's why I think that membership would be granted on appeal.

Roger

Stephens, Adrian P

22 February 2014 12:56 AM

That is exactly what we’re talking about, Roger.

(we use the following terms in 802.11: non-voter, aspirant, potential-voter, voter).

I claim the rules are ambiguous because intelligent people read them differently.   As a result, groups are operating

different rules. We may want to clarify the rules to common interpretation, which would require the minority groups

to change their mode of operation.   Or we might clarify that either interpretation is valid, which would deny the ability

to appeal on the basis of “not following the rules”.

We use the following state machine in 802.11 to determine voter status:

This discussion is arguing about the leftmost transition. In the “soft landing” interpretation, the

attended “<2 of 4” should be removed and replaced by a transition from voter to aspirant based

on “attended 1 of 4”, and a transition from voter to non-voter based on “attended 0 of 4”.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: 22 February 2014 07:23
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Adrian,

I have only a vague understanding of your terms "aspirant" or "observer". I suppose that, by "voter", you are referring to "member". The term "voter" is not in the WG P&P.

As I understand, you are suggesting that an individual who has met all the conditions of membership (including two sessions, per 7.2.1, and including all registration and letter ballot requirements) would be denied membership on grounds of having recently lost membership. I don't see any support for such denial in the rules. I suspect that such an individual would be granted membership on appeal.

Roger

Roger Marks

22 February 2014 12:23 AM

Adrian,

I have only a vague understanding of your terms "aspirant" or "observer". I suppose that, by "voter", you are referring to "member". The term "voter" is not in the WG P&P.

As I understand, you are suggesting that an individual who has met all the conditions of membership (including two sessions, per 7.2.1, and including all registration and letter ballot requirements) would be denied membership on grounds of having recently lost membership. I don't see any support for such denial in the rules. I suspect that such an individual would be granted membership on appeal.

Roger

Stephens, Adrian P

21 February 2014 11:51 PM

Hello Roger,

To clarify, you are assuming the “soft landing” position.    In this the member transitions from voter to aspirant, rather than voter to observer.

On the “non ambiguity” front,   a rule is IMHO ambiguous if apparently competent people come up with a different interpretation of that rule.   Of course, individuals may declare

the rule to be non-ambiguous, and their interpretation to be correct :0).

Tony and myself read the rules to mean a “hard landing” (voter -> observer). So far the other respondents have read the rules to mean a soft landing. Does anybody else use the “hard landing” interpretation?

I must admit I didn’t previously give it a lot of thought, but I think there is merit in the soft landing approach.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Office: +44 (1793) 404 825

Mobile: +44 (7920) 084900

USA Mobile: +1 (408) 239 7485

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

From: Roger Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Stephens, Adrian P
Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] WG membership rules

Adrian,

As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll share my views based on that understanding.

Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual has recently lost membership.

I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.

Regards,

Roger

Roger Marks

21 February 2014 02:53 PM

Adrian,

As I understand, you are discussing membership retention and loss based only on participation. In other words, your question presumes that the individual has met all other obligations (balloting, fees, ...). I'll share my views based on that understanding.

Subclause 7.2.1 states the conditions for establishing membership. An individual who meets those conditions has a right to be granted membership. The rules do not provide for WG officials to override the individual's membership rights; for example, by declaring that some session participation will be ignored on the grounds that the individual has recently lost membership.

I don't see any ambiguity on this in the rules.

Regards,

Roger

Stephens, Adrian P

21 February 2014 12:34 AM

Dear SEC,

If you are responsible for maintaining voting status for your WG, please respond to the

question at the end of this email.

A query by an 802.11 member causes me to question how I’ve interpreted the WG P&P regarding

loss of membership through non-attendance.

The WG P&P State: (my highlight)

7.2.2. Retention

Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four plenary sessions. One duly

constituted interim WG or task group session may be substituted for one of the two plenary

sessions.

7.2.3. Loss

Excepting recirculation letter ballots membership may be lost if two of the last three WG letter

ballots are not returned, or are returned with an abstention for other than “lack of technical

expertise.” This rule may be excused by the WG Chair if the individual is otherwise an active

participant. If lost per this subclause, membership is re-established as if the person were a new

candidate member.

It describes how to retain membership by participation, but does not state what happens

if the member fails to maintain membership.    In the case of failure to return ballots, it is

explicit that the member is reset as though a new member.

So, the rules are ambiguous.   You could interpolate a rule similar to the highlighted case

for non-attendance (which I have unconsciously done in 802.11). In doing so, I am following

previous 802.11 vice chairs’ interpretation.

We have a member with the following attendances

03 2013 - No (plenary)

05 2013 - No (interim)

07 2013 - Yes (plenary)

09 2013 - No (interim)

11 2013 - No (plenary) (loses voting rights)

01 2013 - Yes (interim)

03 2013 - Yes (plenary)

According to the “everything reset” interpretation, the member is an aspirant at the

start of march.   According to the “2 in last 4 plenaries, regardless of loss of voting rights in this period”

interpretation, he is a potential voter.

The implication of the “does not reset” interpretation is that a member never transitions to non-member

directly, but always transitions first to aspirant. And then later transitions to non-member.

IMHO, your working groups must be operating one of the following two rules:

1.       Resets to non-member, loses previous attendances

2.       Reverts to aspirant, keeps previous attendances for future gain to voting member.

Please let me know of these rule you are operating.   If it turns out we’re all doing the same thing, we should

put that in the WG P&P.

Best Regards,

Adrian P STEPHENS

Tel: +44 (1793) 404825 (office)
Tel: +44 (7920) 084 900 (mobile, UK)

Tel: +1 (408) 2397485 (mobile, USA)

----------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

---------- 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.