Roger,
Thanks for your response.
I have decided to avoid to personally
having to make a decision as to who was "uanvoidably" absent from
one of the meetings in the session and will lower the limit for everyone.
This means, anyone that has attended at
least 5 meetings of the first 7 meetings will be entitled to vote at the
closing meeting. Voting tokens will be waiting for all those that show up for
the Thursday evening meeting if they participated in 5 meetings before then.
I will update the web-site and
Best Regards,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks
[mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 7:07
AM
To: Mark Klerer
Cc: stds-802-mobility@ieee.org;
'nico.Vanwaes@nokia.com'; p.nikolich@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-802-mobility:
RE: 802.20 Nominations and Elections
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.
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