RE: [802SEC] Geoff Thompson is appointed interim chair of 802.20
Matt,
Since you have the draft minutes, you have a leg up on me.
As I understand it, you are saying that the analogy between the two
votes is less than perfect. I'd like to consider your points:
(1) I understand that you want to change the rules for voting at
future first meetings of Working Groups. However, as I recall the
discussion, efforts to try to make rules changes retroactively
failed. So I don't see the relevance of this point.
(2) I agree that my analogy is incomplete: we heard a vague,
unsubstantiated claim of something wrong in the case of 802.20 but
have not heard such a claim in the case of the SEC vote. You appear
to be suggesting that the SEC decision was influenced by that vague,
unsubstantiated claim. I'll admit that I hadn't considered that
possibility.
(3) Block voting was discussed. I agree.
If we are going to discuss the analogy between the two votes on the
basis of block voting, then we need to consider the difference in the
rules as they apply to the two cases.
I notice that you have "defined" block voting by citing the rule
demanding that LMSC Executive Committee members "vote as both
professionals and as individual experts... and not as a member of any
affiliate block (organization, alliance, company, consortium, special
interest group, etc.)." I think that's a great idea, but this rule
applies to SEC members, not to Working Group members. If SEC members
don't understand the difference, then I think we have the potential
for a serious problem.
I still haven't seen a definition of "block voting" as it applies to
a Working Group. Ultimately, I think that all we have is the concern
that some people might have voted in a way that their corporate
interests would approve of. I think that, given the secret ballot,
its actually possible that some people did NOT vote the way their
supervisor would have wanted. It's not a secret ballot but an exposed
ballot that would, in any 802 Working Group vote, ensure that nearly
every voter would tow the company line.
(4) You pointed out that the SEC voting is not secret and the 802.20
ballot was. The issue I heard discussed was not the secrecy of the
ballot per se but the fact that there was no way to "audit" the
802.20 elections. I'm still not sure what this means, but I suppose
the point was to look at individual votes and see who voted for who
(though I'm not sure what would be done with that data). The analogy
holds, because there is no record of which way each SEC member voted.
If the SEC believes that voting is improper without an auditable
record of how each individual votes, then it ought to carry out a
roll call for each vote it takes.
Roger
>Roger,
>
>I believe there are a few other points that were made at the meeting
>that were relevant to the 802.20 situation. These include:
>
>1) I think it was expressed by all but one SEC voter that the
>current WG membership rules were inadequate to cover the situation
>that arose in 802.20 and needed to change
>
>2) There was an allegation that went on record from the floor
>that election improprieties occurred during the 802.20 election
>
>3) The issues of block voting was discussed extensively
>
>Also keep in mind that Bob O'Hara is a human being. And though he
>makes a valiant effort, he does not capture every word that is said
>in an SEC session in the minutes. Specifically I saw no mention of
>block voting issues. However I know we discussed the issue of block
>voting and whether it could have occurred in the 802.20 elections.
>While I stayed pretty neutral on the topic I know that I quoted a
>definition of block voting as:
>
>3.4.1 Voting Guidance
>
>It is expected that LMSC Executive Committee members will vote as
>both professionals and as individual experts, except under the
>Directed Position provisions of Procedure 8, and not as a member of
>any affiliate block (organization, alliance, company, consortium,
>special interest group, etc.). If substantive evidence is presented
>to the LMSC Chair that this provision is violated, the LMSC
>Executive Committee will meet to consider what, if any, action to
>take on the presented evidence. Such action may include any action
>up to and including a recommendation for removal from office.
>
>And I essentially asked the question of whether 3GPP could be
>considered such an organization (block) under such voting guidance.
>I don't think we ever answered that question. Also I should note
>that anyone who cares can attend the SEC meeting. Several non-SEC
>members did this meeting. And (with the exception of when we asked
>Carl to step out of the room) how individuals voted could be
>observed by those present. There were no secret ballots. The bottom
>line is I think if you consider ALL the information presented during
>the closing SEC meeting, your analogy fails. At least it fails for
>me.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mat
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:26 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Geoff Thompson is appointed interim chair of 802.20
>
>
>
>The 802.20 officer positions resulting from the March 13, 2003
>election results were not affirmed by the IEEE 802 Executive
>Committee. The Chair has appointed and the Executive Committee has
>affirmed the appointment of Geoff Thompson
><<mailto:Thompson@ieee.org>Thompson@ieee.org> as interim chair of
>802.20. Mr. Thompson will be acting as interim chair until new
>elections are held. The date for new elections will be announced at
>a later date, but the elections will not occur before the July 2003
>Plenary.
>
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>>--Paul Nikolich
>>
>>Chairman, IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee
>>
>><mailto:p.nikolich@ieee.org>p.nikolich@ieee.org
>>
>
>
>
>
>SEC,
>
>
>
>I would like to summarize the arguments I heard articulated in the
>Closing SEC Meeting.
>
>
>
>On the one hand, the vote was conducted fully in accordance with all
>the rules and under the auspices of the SEC leadership, the voters
>were all authorized to vote, and the results were unambiguous. This
>is unchallenged.
>
>
>
>On the other hand:
>
>
>
>*Many of the voters did not attend meetings of the 802 MBWA Study Group.
>
>*Some of the voters may have been less than fully aware of the background.
>
>*Many of the participants work for companies in the communications
>industry, or have no traceable business interest in the issues.
>
>*It's possible that some voters may have voted in alignment with
>their business interests.
>
>*It could be that some of the participants discussed the issue
>before the meeting.
>
>*Leaders may have advocated positions with voters before the meeting.
>
>*Some people were surprised by the result.
>
>*Some people don't feel right about the whole thing.
>
>*There is no record of how each individual voter voted, so the
>voters are not accountable.
>
>
>
>Do you catch the irony here? If not, then take another look at the
>description above and see if it applies to the SEC vote voiding the
>802.20 elections.
>
>
>
>Roger
>
>