| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Roger,
Sorry for the somewhat tardy reply, I was busy getting things ready for the 802.20 meeting.
As you know I am not at all surprised that you agree with Nico's main points since you had written an e-mail very similar to Nico's to me and the chair of the executive committee the day before Nico sent his e-mail.
Let me start out by pointing out that, as you know, the chair does have discretion to give voting priviliges to individuals. It is my intention to be liberal in granting that to individuals if there is some unavoidable reason why they missed one of the six sessions.
As for precedents in interpretions, I actually tried finding all precedents on start-up operation and did read the minutes of 802.16 that you reference. Unfortunately the minutes are not clear enough to be able to figure out why anything was decided. What the minutes do state (both in slides and text) is:
Voting Membership for Session 6
Scott Marin announced and displayed a list of 106 people who had attended 4 or 5 of the 5 sessions through noon on Thursday, 8 July 99 and were therefore were eligible to vote in the Thursday afternoon session (Session 6) Scott Marin asked for objections to the list.
That text seems to lead to the conclusion that you used the second method of computing voting qualification that I cited; that is the meetings leading up to the plenary meeting are considered as qualifying meetings and you had to attend at least 75% of those, i.e. in the case of 5 meeting intervals 4 is 80%. (In the case of 7 meetings 6 is 85% and 5 is only 71%).
I will admit that whether this is the logic that you used is not clear from the minutes as it afterwards also speaks about all who have attended 5 out of six meetings are members. That is the reason I did not cite this before not that I was unaware of it.
I also noted that members of 802.14 had asked that you, as chair, relax the requiremnts, by rounding down rather then up, to 4 out of 6 sessions which you declined.
Finally, as you state, the elections in your first session were by show of hands, what you fail to mention is that the elections were uncontestet. If 802.20 positions are uncontestet, I am sure we would also agree to a simple show of hands.
In closing, I reiterate that I am willing to be liberal in granting voting rights and membership to those that unavoidably miss one session, but still believe that the proposed procedures are reasonable. So, at least one SEC member (me) agrees that this interpretation is within the 802 rules.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:45 AM
To: Mark Klerer
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org; 'nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com'
Subject: Re: stds-802-mobility: RE: 802.20 Nominations and Elections
Mark,
I agree with Nico's main points.
I see that you are citing 802.16 rules for precedence. However, those
rules are not relevant. If you want to look at 802.16 as a precedent,
take a look at our Session #1. Attendance at the closing plenary
meeting DID count toward the 75% used to determine voting rights at
that closing plenary meeting. This is exactly what Nico is asking for.
Another key difference in 802.16 was that voting at the first session
was by show of hands, without ballots or voting tokens. There wasn't
any enforced effort to limit the voting group there.
So, at least one SEC member (me) disagrees that your interpretation
is within the 802 rules. If an individual appealed to the SEC with
the claim of having participated in 6 of the 8 intervals in the first
Working Group meeting but still having been disallowed the
opportunity to vote in the closing plenary of that meeting, I expect
that I would vote to support the appeal.
Roger
At 8:30 PM -0500 03/03/06, Mark Klerer wrote:
>Dear Nico,
>
>Thank you for your note expressing interest in the rationale I used
>in determining membership and granting voting rights at Session #1
>of 802.20. The following note explains the logic I used in arriving
>at the participation requirements I specified.
>
>Participation in the initial session of a new Working Group entitles
>the individual to membership in the Working Group. According to the
>LMSC Rules "[p]articipation is defined as at least 75% presence at a
>meeting". The "at least 75% presence" rule has been interpreted to
>be measured in the number of meeting intervals during a session.
>Furthermore, the assumption is that "sign-in during a meeting
>interval requires attendance during substantially the entire meeting
>interval" (see 802.16 web site
><http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/membership.html>http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/membership.html
>). This leads to the conclusion that an interval participation
>credit is earned after attending "substantially the entire meeting
>interval".
>
>Getting to particulars of the 802.20 March session; the session
>consists of 8 meeting intervals (Monday PM, Tuesday AM, Tuesday PM,
>Wednesday AM, Wednesday PM, Thursday AM, Thursday PM, Thursday
>Evening). To become a WG member with the absolute minimum threshold
>that does not violate the LMSC rules requires participation during 6
>meeting intervals (precisely 75%). So after 6 meeting intervals
>membership rights have been earned. Anyone attending 6 meeting
>intervals in March will be a member and entitled to vote during the
>May session. This includes those individuals whose sixth session is
>the Thursday evening session.
>
>To be a member in time for Thursday evening's election I have used
>the rule that you must have earned membership rights by then, i.e.
>you have already participated in 6 meeting intervals. You are a
>member even if you do not show up that evening to vote. On the other
>hand if you have only attended 5 sessions by then you are not yet a
>member because for the sixth interval you have not yet attended
>"during substantially the entire meeting interval". If you stay for
>substantially the entire interval you will be a voting member at the
>next session.
>
>I have also looked at the option of considering 75% of the first 7
>intervals - that still leads to requiring participation in 6
>intervals.
>
>I believe that this is an entirely fair and even-handed way of
>handling the granting of membership privileges and completely
>consistent with the LMSC rules.
>
>Since receipt of your note I have also spoken to some of the SEC
>members and they have agreed that my interpretation of the rules is
>reasonable. If you disagree with my implementation of the rules, I
>would suggest that you contact the SEC ahead of the plenary meeting.
>
>I look forward to your participation in 802.20.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mark Klerer
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com
>[<mailto:nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com>mailto:nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com]
>
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 3:33 PM
>
>To: m.klerer@flarion.com
>
>Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org
>
>Subject: Re: 802.20 Nominations and Elections
>
>Dear Mark,
>
>I was reading through the elections rules you posted and noticed a
>discrepancy with the 802 rules.
>
>You cited the 802 Rules, which require 75% attendance (and payment
>of fees) for membership and the right to vote. According to the
>schedule, and as you noted, that would be 6 out of a total of 8
>sessions.
>
>However, you also stated that you would only allow those people to
>vote, who attend 6 sessions out of the 7 sessions preceeding the
>closing plenary. Since these people need to present during the
>closing plenary to actually vote, that will be their 7th session out
>of the total of 8, resulting in an effective attendance requirement
>of 7 sessions out of 8 or 87.5%.
>
>This requirement as outlined is hence clearly in violation of the
>standing 802 rules and would in my opinion, if appealed, likely lead
>to the ballot being declared invalid.
>
>Since all members have the right to vote, and in the case of a first
>plenary meeting, all anticipated members, the correct action hence
>is to prepare ballots for all persons who have attended at least 5
>sessions out of those preceding the closing plenary, not 6.
>
>I would appreciate if you could make this correction in the proposed
>procedure.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>Dr.Ir. Nico van Waes
>
>Systems Engineer / Algorithm Jockey
>
>Nokia Wireless Routers