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

Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status

Pat-

Sounds like it could be right.
I might well have instituted that policy to make the things more regularized vs. having to manage random pieces of paper accumulated in my pocket over the week. You point about heavy nudging to get folks to attend a plenary is also true. 

Geoff

On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:20 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:


Hi Geoff,
The part about "the only time" is something that came in more recently. When I was chair, someone could speak up during the part of the opening and closing plenary when I showed the list or they give me a note (on paper or email as email wasn't as entrenched back then) at any time indicating that they wanted to be a voter.
It was later that 802.3 instituted became the only time one could declare intent to become a voter was by being physically present during the agenda slot for it in the opening and closing plenary. IIRC, that was instituted partly based on wanting to make it clear that voters have a responsibility to the whole work of IEEE 802.3 and should therefore be present for at least one of the plenary meetings during the week. 

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 2:19 PM
To: Pat Thaler
Cc: Geoff Thompson; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status

Pat-

The system that we have in dot 3 does date from Loughry days as far as
I can recall.

For the rest of you on the list,
the system is that a list of "Potential Voters" is prepared for each
plenary meeting.
It is a standard part of the Monday and Thursday Plenary agenda that
those on the list can ask to become voters.
That is the only time in the normal dot 3 process that voters are
added to the list.

(Two other lists are shown during this agenda item,
	- the current revision of the VOTER list
	- the "Voters in Peril" list, i.e. those who will cease to be voters
if they don't have full attendance at the plenary
)

It may be true that in earlier times the list wasn't opened during the
closing plenary.
I would have to do some research to determine that and it doesn't seem
material to the current discussion.

Regards,
	Geoff


On Feb 24, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:


To make sure it is clear, the difference for IEEE 802.3 and IEEE
802.1 from A is not in what meetings count for attendance.

It is that both groups exercise an option that is documented in
7.2.1 of the WG P&P
"A declaration of intent to the Chair of the WG may also be required
in a WG to gain membership."

In the context of Adrian's flow chart, the transition to voter (or
to potential voter) requires an additional condition of "has
declared intent as required by the WG".

Since membership confers obligation (to vote) as well as privileges,
it seems reasonable to have a participant affirm that they were
willing to be a voter before they became a voter. So at least since
I was chair, IEEE 802.3 has required that - I can't recall whether
Don Loughry did.

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
] On Behalf Of Law, David
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:45 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status

Hi Adrian,

IEEE 802.3 operates in the same way as IEEE 802.1 described below.

Best regards,
David

-----

From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org
] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: 24 February 2014 17:25
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll: working practice for voting status

Adrian -
C. But actually closely similar to your A: "Soft Landing", as follows: 

802.1 requires aspiring voters to affirm their intention to become a
voter, rather than automagically becoming a voter when their
attendance hits the right threshold. So, if a participant loses
voting membership through lack of attendance, they transition to
what you call "observer" status, requiring them to reaffirm their
intent to become a voter before they can actually become a voter
again. However, it is still a "soft landing" in that previous
credits are still valid if they do in fact reaffirm their intent.
Similarly, new attendees aren't penalised if they don't immediately
affirm their intent to become voters; at the point where they decide
that they want to be a voter, any accumulated credit up to that
point still counts.

By the way, I suspect your terminology (observer, aspirant, etc.)
may confuse the issue, as it is terminology that was invented by the
developers of Imat rather than terminology that exists in our rules.

-----

Regards,
Tony

On 24 February 2014 15:29, Paul Nikolich <paul.nikolich@att.net>
wrote:
Dear EC members,

In an effort to help Adrian collect the information he's looking for
on the current working practice for 802 groups I am conducting a
straw poll as defined below.  Adrian, I delegate the data collection
and result report of this straw poll to you.  Thank you.

Regards,

--Paul


The purpose of this poll is to determine current working practice
for 802 working groups and TAGs.
Eligible to respond:   the chairs of all non-hibernating 802 working
groups and TAGs or their designee
Duration of poll: 10 days.   If all response are received before
then,  the poll will be closed early.

Definitions:
1.       Loss of voting status on non-attendance means that the
member fails to attend 2 of the last 4 plenaries,  one of which may
be substituted by an interim.
2.       "Soft landing" means that the member keeps their previous
attendances.  This results in the member transition to aspirant or
observer status depending on whether they have a previous attendance
in the last 4 plenaries (modulo interim substitution rule).
3.       "Hard landing" means that the member loses credit for their
previous attendances.   They necessarily return to observer status.

Poll:   Does your working group operate "soft landing" or "hard
landing" rules for loss of voting status based on non-attendance.
               A: "Soft Landing"
               B: "Hard Landing"
               C: "Something else not covered by these definitions"
---------- 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.




----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.