Re: [802SEC] New subclauses for LMSC P&P
James-
> On Oct 28, 2018, at 10:54 PMPDT, James P. K. Gilb <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> All
>
> Hmm, lets see if I can stir the pot some:
I disagree with you. You are, from my point of view, calming the pot.
>
> 1) The only requirement to report is from our superior rules and any that we add. IMHO: We should not add any more requirements.
>
> 2) I don't think we should load down the Ombudsman with "shall report". Are we going to require Vice Chairs? Secretaries? Treasurers? All of the foregoing are officers.
>
> 3) The Ombudsman is free, as is any participant, to bring a suspicion or complaint of dominance to the WG Chair, the Sponsor Chair or SASB. There is no reason to _require_ that the Ombudsman does this.
>
> 4) The purpose of the Ombudsman is to help a participant do what they could, in theory, do themselves. The Ombudsman is there to offer experience and knowledge of the process to assist the participant.
To that end, the Ombudsman needs maximum flexibility. It should be a person chosen for their judgement and discretion.
>
> 5) As with all of our other positions, if the Ombudsman isn't doing a good job, then they should be removed, not reappointed or not confirmed. We certainly should not get proscriptive of the Ombudsman's tasks in the P&P. If we want to add specific tasks, then lets add them to the Chair's Guidelines in which we have most of those listed for the other officers.
>
> 6) We will learn through experience what the best tasks are for the Ombudsman. As we learn them, we can update the Chair's guidelines.
or not.
Geoff
>
> IMHO.
>
> James Gilb
>
> On 10/28/18 12:17 PM, George Zimmerman wrote:
>> Geoff –
>> I think you’re on the track of balancing this well.
>> The key words I’ve seen in situations involving either elder or child abuse (the main legal ‘mandated reporting’ situations) are ‘reasonable suspicion’, and, in some cases, the rules for ombudsmen limit their mandated reporting to direct observations leading to a ‘reasonable suspicion’. These are important concepts in modulating hearsay and rumor-passing from practice, and, as they say, at some point, you have to trust somebody. If that trust fails, the complainant always has the option to go public, and, as you said, the ombudsman can and should explain the options the process allows.
>> I think that if we include the language that allows c****fi****iality, but requires passing on to the sponsor chair either a ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘direct observation’ in the ombudsman’s own name, compliants which would require reporting to the sponsor chair according to these P&Ps (I’m assuming there may be ones other than dominance – if not, we could make the language simpler) we both enable and require the ombudsman to use individual good judgment, and avoid situations where something is swept under the rug.
>> -george
>> From: Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:43 AM
>> To: George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com>
>> Cc: Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] New subclauses for LMSC P&P
>> All-
>> It is clearly true that the SASB wants early warning on suspicions of dominance.
>> Early, I believe to mean that they want to know about and be kept in the loop about it before action is required rather than being blindsided by an immediate need for action.
>> OTOH, a complainant needs to have a place to go before the decision is made to pull the trigger. He needs to have someone to talk to who knows how things work, someone who is not obligated to blow the whistle at the first suspicion. So my opinion is that it is the job of the Ombudsman to:
>> 1. Provide advice and counsel on a c**fi***ial basis
>> 2. Assist a complainant in making a complaint in the complainant's name, should that be the outcome of #1
>> 3. Report the "suspicion" of dominance in the Ombudsman's own name if #2 doesn't happen while preserving the anonymity of the initial complainant.
>> In case #3 I would expect the report to just be a heads up with no call to action and a broad range of recommendations available for what is the appropriate ongoing action, one of those recommendations available being that no further action or monitoring is needed.
>> Geoff
>> On Oct 26, 2018, at 11:38 AMPDT, George Zimmerman <george@CMEPHYCONSULTING.COM<mailto:george@CMEPHYCONSULTING.COM>> wrote:
>> Ben – I think you’ve highlighted for me that we need to figure out what constitutes a ‘complaint’.
>> I’ve some experience with the notion of mandated reporters in my personal life. My wife is a healthcare professional, and my mother was a trained ombudsman. Both have situations where they must legally report (generally related to abuse situations). There is little gray area – but if someone is trying to figure out whether a situation is, in fact, a reportable event, and the answer isn’t clearly ‘no’, then there ought to be duty to look into it, and report if there is a ‘reasonable suspicion’.
>> We should also make clear to the individual bringing the information when something is passed on, and when it is not.
>> -george
>> From: Benjamin A. Rolfe <ben@blindcreek.com<mailto:ben@blindcreek.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 11:21 AM
>> To: George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com<mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>>; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] New subclauses for LMSC P&P
>> On 10/23/2018 10:06 AM, George Zimmerman wrote:
>> All – I’m curious why we would limit the obligation to report a complaint as significant as an allegation of dominance.
>> The difference between an allegation and seeking information is what comes to mind. Specifically to provide a "safe" way to discuss a situation or observation without it becoming a formal complaint automatically. I am unclear now with the recent change if I can have any conversation on the topic with a subgroup chair, until I am sure I would want the discussion disclosed to the sponsor chair and IEEE-SA. Ideally, the Ombudsman would have the knowledge and understanding of the rules and process, perhaps know the right questions to ask, to help an individual decide if a formal complaint is appropriate. Our participants need someone of whom they can ask questions who is not obligated to make a formal report of the conversation.
>> It seems we create situations where reporting may be rendered ineffective either through (perceived or actual) conflicts of interest, or lack of a ‘duty’ to pass the information on.
>> This is mitigated by making clearly communicating the duty of the Ombudsman vs a chair. If we clearly state that the Ombudsman must report if so requested, and must not report if asked not to, then I see how there can be little confusion. The "backup" are the subgroup chairs: if one feels the need to escalate, one need only talk with any subgroup chair who, as it was explained to me, have not choice but to move it up.
>> Have I missed the point (again) ?
>> Ben
>> -george
>> From: Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org><mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 9:46 PM
>> To: George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com><mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>; Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org><mailto:thompson@ieee.org>
>> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>; James Gilb <Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com><mailto:Gilb_IEEE@yahoo.com>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] New subclauses for LMSC P&P
>> I think that's fine. Still, I don't think that the rules should require the Ombudsman to forward inquiries about dominance.
>> Per the latest draft rule discussion circulated by James, the Subgroup Chair shall report a suspicion or complaint of dominance. There is no such obligation on the Ombudsman to make such a report. I think that's the way it should be. If an individual has a concern about dominance but is not ready to raise a formal complaint, I think the individual should be able to raise concerns c*nf*d*ntially with the Ombudsman without triggering a formal complaint.
>> Along those lines, I suggest that we change the circulated dominance text as follows:
>> If a Sponsor Subgroup Chair suspects that an authorized activity <ins>within that Subgroup<ins> is potentially dominated, as defined in the IEEE Standards Board Bylaws, or receives a complaint of dominance <ins>within that Subgroup<ins>, that Sponsor Subgroup Chair shall report the complaint or suspicion the Sponsor Chair.
>> The intention is to eliminate ambiguity about whether each Sponsor Subgroup Chair is responsible for dominance in all the other Sponsor Subgroups.
>> Cheers,
>> Roger
>> On Oct 22, 2018, 4:56 PM -0600, Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org<mailto:thompson@ieee.org>>, wrote:
>> George-
>> Yes, like that.
>> Perhaps:
>> ‘c*nf*d*ntial to the extent allowed by the nature of the complaint and these (rules, P&P’s, whatever is the correct term). The c*nf*d*ntiality or lack thereof aspect of the problem will be fully discussed with the complainant before going forward so that there are no surprises.'
>> Geoff
>> On Oct 22, 2018, at 2:54 PMPDT, George Zimmerman <george@cmephyconsulting.com<mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>> wrote:
>> On the issue of c*nf*d*ntiality, there may be issues that we cannot keep fully c*nf*d*ntial due to both our small group, and our other bylaws. As I read the c*nf*d*ntiality note, it occurred to me that within the same email was a type of complaint which, by our other bylaws, could not be kept quiet. By the same rules, a complaint of dominance would have to be forwarded to several individuals under the rules.
>> There must be complaints – such as dominance – which will necessarily require forwarding to sponsor subchairs, chair and other officials. It seems impossible to treat these fully c*nf*d*ntially, and we would need some ‘out’ clause, such as ‘c*nf*d*ntial to the extent allowed by the nature of the complaint and these (rules, P&P’s, whatever is the correct term).
>> -george
>> George A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.
>> President & Principal Consultant
>> CME Consulting, Inc.
>> Experts in PHYsical Layer Communications
>> 1-310-920-3860
>> george@cmephyconsulting.com<mailto:george@cmephyconsulting.com>
>> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org>> On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:58 PM
>> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [802SEC] New subclauses for LMSC P&P
>> Roger-
>> I like your text except for one aspect which is related to my problem with your quote from the International Ombudsman Association.
>> I think that the Assoc. principles are oriented to larger situations where the complainer tends to be more anonymous.
>> Your text tends to indicate that the discussion of whether or not to compromise participant's c*nf*d*ntiality makes it look like it comes late in the process.
>> My feeling is that the nature of the complaint in our small fora will tend to identify the complainant.
>> Because of that aspect and just on general principles I think that one of the first discussions with the complainant should be a discussion of just how "c*nf*d*ntial" any action will be given the nature of the complaint and how the complainant wants to handle that aspect.
>> I don't have text drafted at this point but I think we should make that an integral part of the initial discussion.
>> Geoff
>> On Oct 22, 2018, at 12:26 PMPDT, Roger Marks <r.b.marks@ieee.org<mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org>> wrote:
>> James,
>> I that the Dominance text is a big improvement and looks quite good.
>> On the Ombudsman issue, the text uses the word "c*nf*d*ntial":
>> The Sponsor Ombudsman shall serve as a c*nf*d*ntial information resource, communications channel, complaint handler and dispute resolver.
>> That's good. In trying to understand the role, I've noticed that the International Ombudsman Association says that the ethical principles are: Independence, Impartiality, c*nf*d*ntiality, and Informality.
>> I think we should clarify the text regarding c*nf*d*ntiality and to be a little more explicit about the process. Here is a proposed revision of the last three paragraphs that I think would be an improvement:
>> A <del>copy</del> <ins>notification</ins> of all <del>IEEE 802 LMSC-related</del> complaints <ins>related to IEEE 802 or a subgroup</ins> received by the Sponsor or any Sponsor Subgroup should be sent to the Sponsor Ombudsman. A standard form should be generated that indicates: the name and contact information of the participant, the nature of the complaint, and any action taken in response to the complaint.
>> Participants are invited to write directly to the Sponsor Ombudsman if they have reason to believe their original complaint has not received the attention it deserves <ins>or if they prefer to bring the concern condidentially to a neutral party</ins>. The Sponsor Ombudsman is responsible for: 1. immediately acknowledging receipt of the complaint, 2. <ins>c*nf*d*ntially</ins> investigating the nature of the complaint <del>and suggesting action(s) that may help rectify the problem </del>, 3. responding to the participant with details of the actions taken <ins>, suggesting action(s) that may help rectify the problem, </ins> and inviting the participant to correspond further if either this action does not solve the problem or if participant still remains dissatisfied.<ins> In-person meetings are encouraged. The Sponsor Ombudsman may take actions to address the concern but shall not compromise the participant's c*nf*d*ntiality without prior agreement of the participant.</ins>
>> The Sponsor Ombudsman shall report to the Sponsor at each plenary session.
>> Cheers,
>> Roger
>> On Oct 22, 2018, 11:15 AM -0600, James P. K. Gilb <000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@ieee.org<mailto:000008e8b69871c2-dmarc-request@ieee.org>>, wrote:
>> All
>> During the ad-hoc call, we came to consensus on the language below for
>> dominance and the ombudsman.
>> Notes:
>> 1) For dominance, some of the text is base on our superior rules
>> (i.e., that suspected dominance is reported promptly to SASB)
>> 2) We decided to add the Ombudsman as a non-voting member of the EC.
>> Hence, the term, appointment, etc., is already covered in the text for
>> other non-voting members.
>> If you have any comments on the text, please send them to the reflector
>> for discussion so we can achieve agreement prior to Bangkok.
>> Thanks
>> James Gilb
>> ---------------------------------
>> 10.0 Dominance
>> If a Sponsor Subgroup Chair suspects that an authorized activity is
>> potentially dominated, as defined in the IEEE Standards Board Bylaws, or
>> receives a complaint of dominance, that Sponsor Subgroup Chair shall
>> report the complaint or suspicion the Sponsor Chair. The Sponsor Chair
>> shall promptly notify the Chair of the IEEE SASB of the suspicion or
>> complaint.
>> The Sponsor Subgroup Chair shall then investigate the suspicion or
>> complaint and present a report to the Sponsor with recommend actions(s).
>> The Sponsor Subgroup Chair may appoint a panel to perform the
>> investigation and prepare the report.
>> If the Sponsor determines that an authorized activity is dominated, the
>> Sponsor may direct that the votes of individuals in the dominating party
>> shall be treated as a single vote for the purpose of that activity. The
>> Sponsor Chair shall notify the Chair of the IEEE SASB of the action.
>> If the Sponsor determines that other actions should be taken in response
>> to the dominance of an authorized activity, the proposed actions shall
>> be forwarded by the Sponsor Chair to the Chair of the IEEE SASB for
>> consideration. The actions will take effect only if approved by the
>> IEEE SASB.
>> The Sponsor Chair shall update the Chair of the IEEE SASB after every
>> plenary, at a minimum, regarding the action until its conclusion.
>> 11.0 Sponsor Ombudsman
>> The Sponsor Chair may appoint a volunteer to be the Sponsor Ombudsman.
>> The Sponsor Ombudsman should have experience working with the IEEE SASB.
>> The Sponsor Ombudsman shall serve as a c*nf*d*ntial information
>> resource, communications channel, complaint handler and dispute resolver.
>> A brief notice, giving the contact method and purpose of the Sponsor
>> Ombudsman, shall be posted on the IEEE 802 website.
>> A copy of all IEEE 802 LMSC-related complaints received by the Sponsor
>> or any Sponsor Subgroup should be sent to the Sponsor Ombudsman. A
>> standard form should be generated that indicates: the name and contact
>> information of the participant, the nature of the complaint, and any
>> action taken in response to the complaint.
>> Participants are invited to write directly to the Sponsor Ombudsman if
>> they have reason to believe their original complaint has not received
>> the attention it deserves. The Sponsor Ombudsman is responsible for:
>> 1. immediately acknowledging receipt of the complaint,
>> 2. investigating the nature of the complaint and suggesting
>> action(s) that may help rectify the problem,
>> 3. responding to the participant with details of the actions
>> taken and inviting the participant to correspond further if either this
>> action does not solve the problem or if participant still remains
>> dissatisfied.
>> The Sponsor Ombudsman shall report to the Sponsor at each plenary session
>> ----------
>> ________________________________
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
>> ________________________________
>> To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-SEC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-SEC&A=1
>> ----------
>> 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.