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

Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted classification+++need mover and seconder+++



Bob -

I agree.

Regards,
Tony

At 07:30 30/04/2008, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the clarification.  I was hoping that the SASB would have the
>responsibility of finding the solution.  Oh well....
>
>It does seem that disenfranchising the chair of 802.20 entirely in this
>matter is going to make it very difficult to have the .20 WG buy into
>any decisions made by the UC-EC.  It seems to me that we need to find a
>method that will bring the members of 802.20 into the process, not push
>them further from it.
>
>  -Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-
> > SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Grow, Bob
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:54 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >
> > Bob:
> >
> > I'll hazard offering my recollection on the subject (likely
>compromised
> > by the passage of time).
> >
> > The SASB excluded its (perceived) conflicted members for discussion
>and
> > action on 802.20 prior to the establishment of an unconflicted EC.  My
> > recollection is that this first occurred in March 2006, though it
>could
> > have been in June 2006.  In September 2006, the SASB heard
> > presentations
> > on the activities and status of 802.20 with its report issued on 19
>Sep
> > 2006, which included suspension of the WG pending its reorganization.
> >
> > I recall only verbal instructions on the process to determine
> > conflicted/unconflicted.  Questions were asked by IEEE counsel related
> > to personal and employer/affiliation interest in 802.20/802.16
> > activities (participation of another individual from your affiliation
> > being defined as a perceived conflict).  Those with a perceived
> > conflict
> > were excluded from further discussion and action.  The remaining
> > members
> > then discussed and voted on each individual in executive session.
> >
> > The clearly unconflicted members of the SASB made the decision on
>which
> > of the potentially conflicted members would be accepted as
> > unconflicted.
> > Though we use the term conflicted, I do not believe any determination
> > was made that the individual was actually conflicted, rather that the
> > perception of conflict was significant enough for the individual to be
> > excluded.  I believe the same applies to the EC.
> >
> > The creation of the unconflicted EC process was similar.  As I recall
>I
> > was the only EC member who's EC status was determined by the SASB
> > (having been determined as a conflicted SASB member, I was told I was
> > automatically a conflicted EC member).  I don't know though if the EC
> > voted on my status specific to that assertion.  I believe all others
> > classified as conflicted were by decision of fellow EC members.
> >
> > The unconflicted SASB voted in March 2007 on which new members would
>be
> > unconflicted on 802.20.  I believe Paul is properly following the
> > precedent of initial classification of members as well as the SASB
> > process for new members.
> >
> > --Bob
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:59 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > Not that I have any official voice in this discussion, but could you
> > recap for us exactly how the original members of the UC-EC were
> > identified and by whom they were identified?  I don't recall a motion
> > and discussion of this nature taking place on the determination of the
> > original makeup of the UC-EC.  Of course, it could just be the
>Percocet
> > interfering with my memory this morning.  But, wasn't the original
> > determination made by the SASB, not the EC?   Shouldn't they be
> > responsible for making the same determination with respect to Mark's
> > position?
> >
> >  -Bob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-
> > > SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:22 AM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > >
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > > We are in deep weeds for sure and I personally agree with your first
> > > recommendation. Unfortunately, the LMSC EC's request to SASB to
> > > dissolve the
> > > UC-EC in Nov2007 was denied.  As I recall, the SASB response to our
> > > request
> > > was the UC-EC must stay in place until the 802.20 sponsor ballot is
> > > complete.
> > >
> > > As for how to handle the conflict/unconflicted-ness, I agree with
> > John
> > > H.,
> > > the classification and rights issues are independent.  I'd like to
> > make
> > > progress on the classsification, since that is less ambigous. Then
> > lets
> > > tackle the rights issue.
> > >
> > > --Paul
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
> > > To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> > > Cc: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > 802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > >
> > >
> > > > Paul -
> > > >
> > > > On reflection, I believe we are in deep weeds here with regard to
> > > > procedure.
> > > >
> > > > We (802) have no procedures in our P&P that define how an
> > > unconflicted EC
> > > > works; all we have with regard to the UC-EC is a set of
> > requirements
> > > > imposed on us by the standards board. When they invented the
>UC-EC,
> > I
> > > > don't think that the SB anticipated the current situation at all -
> > it
> > > was
> > > > set up when Arnie was still Chair, so the question didn't arise.
> > And
> > > as
> > > > Bob O'Hara was frequently called upon to point out to us, we can't
> > > change
> > > > our P&P simply by passing a motion. So, I believe that the only
>way
> > > to fix
> > > > this is through the SB doing one of two things:
> > > >
> > > > - Dissolving the UC-EC; or
> > > > - Making a ruling as to what rights an otherwise conflicted Chair
> > of
> > > > 802.20 might have when representing the wishes of his working
> > group.
> > > >
> > > > Or possibly by the EC Chair simply stating how he will interpret
> > the
> > > rules
> > > > with regard to what a not-unconflicted Chair may do.
> > > >
> > > > I would personally advocate the first of these three solutions.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 16:07 21/04/2008, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >>Buzz,
> > > >>
> > > >>I disagree--we must be consistent in determining the
> > classification.
> > > The
> > > >>determination of conflicted vs unconflicted must be made using the
> > > >>criteria I established in my 3APR email (see extract below). This
> > is
> > > >>consistent with how we have treated every EC member regarding
>their
> > > >>classification.
> > > >>
> > > >>Once we make the above decision, then we can take the second step.
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>--Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Nikolich
> > > >>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:36 PM
> > > >>Subject: determination of unconflicted vs conflicted status of new
> > EC
> > > >>members
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>All,
> > > >>
> > > >>The criteria we shall use in classifying the new EC members as
> > > >>Unconflicted or Conflicted regarding 802.20 decisions:
> > > >>a) The "perception of conflict" is a test for disclosure:  is the
> > EC
> > > >>member aware of a fact (about himself or someone else) that would
> > > cause a
> > > >>reasonable person on the outside looking in to believe that the
> > > member had
> > > >>an interest in the outcome or for whatever reason was unable to
> > > decide in
> > > >>the best interest of the IEEE.
> > > >>b) The test for a determination of an "actual conflict" was
>whether
> > > there
> > > >>was in fact an interest that could prevent someone from making an
> > > unbiased
> > > >>decision.
> > > >>
> > > >>[...rest of email deleted...]
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Rigsbee, Everett O"
> > > >><everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>
> > > >>To: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>;
> > > >><STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:46 AM
> > > >>Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Paul,  I think you have the right plan in the wrong order.  I
> > > personally
> > > >>would be a lot more comfortable judging Mark (and other EC
>members)
> > > to
> > > >>be not Unconflicted if I was confident that they would be able to
> > > move
> > > >>and vote for WG directed positions.  So I think we need to clarify
> > > what
> > > >>it means to be "not Unconflicted" before we vote on his status.
> > > Doesn't
> > > >>that make sense ???     :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanx,  Buzz
> > > >>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > >>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> > > >>Boeing IT
> > > >>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > >>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> > > >>Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
> > > >>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> > > >>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> > > >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 7:37 AM
> > > >>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > >>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > > >>
> > > >>Dear UC-EC members,
> > > >>
> > > >>I think we must follow a two step process.
> > > >>- First, let's make the determination whether Mark Klerer is
> > > >>unconflicted or
> > > >>conflicted.
> > > >>- Second, we'll decide on how to handle his rights as either an
> > > >>unconflicte
> > > >>or conflicted EC member.
> > > >>
> > > >>To take the first step, I would recommend the following UC-EC
> > motion
> > > be
> > > >>made
> > > >>by an UC-EC member:
> > > >>
> > > >>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC
> > roster.
> > > >>
> > > >>Do I have a mover and seconder?
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>--Paul
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Jeffree"
> > > <tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK>
> > > >>To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > >>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:23 AM
> > > >>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > >>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > >>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>I would second such a motion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Regards,
> > > >>>Tony
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>At 19:59 20/04/2008, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> > > >>>>Paul,  I much prefer the solution proposed by Roger Marks, that
> > any
> > > >>>>conflicted EC-members be entitled to propose and vote in favor
>of
> > > >>>>motions submitted to them as directed positions from their
> > Working
> > > >>>>Group.  It just seems fairer and more even-handed.  And I have
> > > offered
> > > >>>>to make a motion to that effect.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Thanx,  Buzz
> > > >>>>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > >>>>Executive Secretary, IEEE-802 LMSC
> > > >>>>Boeing IT
> > > >>>>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > >>>>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> > > >>>>Ph: (425) 373-8960    Fx: (425) 865-7960
> > > >>>>Cell: (425) 417-1022
> > > >>>>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
> > > >>>>Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:46 AM
> > > >>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > >>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++un-conflicted EC motion #4 regarding
> > > >>>>802.20+++determine Mark Klerer's unconflcted/conflicted
> > > >>>>classification+++need mover and seconder+++
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Dear Unconflicted EC members,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>There has been discussion over the past wek regarding the
> > > >>>>conflicted/un-conflicted classification of Mark Klerer,
> > > specifically
> > > >>>>that if
> > > >>>>he is not made a member of the UC-EC perhaps he should be given
> > > unique
> > > >>>>status regarding placing 802.20 WG motions before the UC-EC.  I
> > > don't
> > > >>>>believe special status is needed to ensure fair and proper
> > > >>consideration
> > > >>>>of
> > > >>>>802.20 WG business by the UC-EC. A special status will only
>serve
> > > to
> > > >>>>complicate the unconflicted EC and conflicted EC classification
> > > >>process.
> > > >>>>If
> > > >>>>Mark is classified as conflicted, he will have the right to
> > propose
> > > >>that
> > > >>>>an
> > > >>>>UC-EC member place a motion on the floor on his behalf,
> > participate
> > > in
> > > >>>>crafting the motion language and voicing an opinion on changes
>to
> > > it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>To that end, I'd like to propose the following motion:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Motion: Mark Klere shall not be added to the Unconflicted EC
> > roster
> > > >>and
> > > >>>>shall have the right to propose that an UC-EC member place a UC-
> > EC
> > > >>>>motion on
> > > >>>>the floor on his behalf, participate in crafting the motion
> > > language
> > > >>and
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>voicing an opinion on changes to it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I need a mover and and seconder for the above motion.  Only
>UC-EC
> > > >>>>members
> > > >>>>may participate in the vote.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Regards,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>--Paul Nikolich
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>----------
> > > >>>>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.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.