RE: stds-802-mobility: RE: 802.20 Nominations and Elections
Title: RE: stds-802-mobility: RE: 802.20 Nominations and
Elec
Mark,
Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity in the logic of how voting
rights were determined in 802.16's Session #1. In my mind, the
criterion was 5/6 intervals, including the last one. However, you are
correct that this logic is not specified in the minutes. One could
reasonably interpret the rationale was based on attendance at 4/5
intervals _before_ the final one. When you have 6 intervals, the 75%
conclusion is the same either way. When you have 8 intervals, the
conclusion differs depending on which logic you use.
While I accept that the 802 rules are generally ambiguous on this
issue, I still hold the opinion that someone who attends 6/8 intervals
should be eligible to vote in the last one, regardless of which 6
intervals they were. I do respect your right to hold a different
opinion. I will not raise the issue at the SEC meeting.
I hope that all 802.20 participants attend each of your 8
intervals and give the project their full attention, as it deserves. I
encourage them to do so.
Regards,
Roger
At 11:11 PM -0500 03/03/08, Mark Klerer wrote:
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