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

RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on SEC electronic balloting

For all the reasons stated to date, I also disapprove.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Sherman [] 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:39 PM
To: 'IEEE802'
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot on
SEC electronic balloting

Hi Everyone,

This ballot closes October 28th at Midnight EST.  We have had a pretty
turn out so far, but there are still a few hold outs.  If you have not
voted or offered an opinion please do.  The votes and comments I have
recorded to date are attached below.  Please let me know if you see any

Best Regards


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 

Current Voting Status (10/21):

00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS
01 Geoff Thompson                                  DNV
02 Matthew Sherman                         ABS
03 Buzz Rigsbee                    DIS
04 Bob O'Hara                                      DNV
05 Bill Quackenbush                                DNV
06 Tony Jeffree                    DIS             
07 Bob Grow                                        DNV
08 Stuart Kerry                    DIS             
09 Bob Heile                       DIS             
10 Roger Marks                     DIS             
11 Mike Takefman                   DIS
12 Carl Stevenson                  DIS             
13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV
            totals:      0 APP   5 DIS   1 ABS   8 DNV

10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.  Ballot is FAILing.

Comments to Date:

Paul Nikolich []                                Thu
11:41 AM

I vote disapprove for the following reasons:

1) I disagree with the concept of extending a ballot because quorum was
not met.  If quorum is not met in the specified time, the ballot fails,
plain and simple.

2) Quorum should be defined as >50% response rate and required for a
ballot to be valid.

3) I don't see the need for the change to 3.6.3.  The intent of closing
the ballot at least 30 days before the plenary is to give the ballot
holder time for ballot comment resolution.  (Typically we do this the
Sunday before the plenary, but it could be done before that via email,
if the group was so motivated, and 30 days seems like a reasonable time
to work on ballot comment resolution.)


Rigsbee, Everett O []           Wed
4:30 PM

OK,  I vote disapprove for the same reasons as Roger and Tony.  

If we're going to fix it, let's really fix it to reflect reality.  


Bob Heile []
8/29/2002 12:18 PM

disapprove.  ditto  the comment thread

8/28/2002 3:59 PM

I'm sorry but my vote is also to Disapprove this motion on similar
to Carl's sentiments.


Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) []		Wed
8/28/2002 3:30 PM

I also vote disapprove for the same reasons elaborated
by Tony and Roger.

Hopefully, at the next SEC meeting we can hammer this
out and get it right once and for all.


Grow, Bob []					Wed
8/28/2002 2:34 PM


Thanks for seeing and pointing out what should have been obvious over
years we have been working on electronic balloting.  All "letter"
should be electronic.  


Roger B. Marks []				Wed
8/28/2002 10:57 AM

I vote Disapprove.

Some general comments:

Before I can vote on rules changes, I need to see the current rules. The
rules on the web are dated March 2001.

Like Tony, I oppose tinkering with the rules without fixing them.

I agree with Tony that any change to the voting ought to delete the
of paper voting.

The change to talks about extending the duration of the ballot.
However, there is no language in the existing rules about how that
is set in the first place. It says only that someone will "determine the
minimum duration of the ballot". There is nothing in the rules about the
_maximum_ duration, which would be the _actual_ duration. So perhaps the
current rules already allow for an extension of the voting period.

The change talks about an extension "if a quorum is not achieved", but I
don't know what this means because the existing language doesn't say
anything about a quorum. It does say that approval requires a majority
the members. Let's say that there are 13 SEC members and the vote is 6
approve, 1 disapprove. Motion fails for lack of a majority. But is 7 out
13 votes a quorum? Who knows? If it's a quorum, then (according to the
proposed rule) the opportunity to extend doesn't apply.

Even if the language of the change is revised to both clarify the
rule and to accurately specify the new procedures, I might oppose it on
principle. My concern is that the process is like an automatic deadline
extension. I am afraid this will make it harder to get any ballot

In the proposed change to 3.6.3, I have no idea of the meaning of the
sentence: "The time after the current plenary by be reduced to 15 days
well for an electronic ballot." [If "by" is replaced by "may", I still
get it.]

If we are going to tinker with 3.6.3, I don't see how we can overlook a
problem that has been glaring at us, which is this sentence: "The
Committee Vice Chair, (or other Executive Committee member) designated
the LMSC Chair, shall distribute the proposed change to all persons who
attended the current Plenary Session or one of the preceding two Plenary
Sessions at least sixty (60) days prior to the next Plenary Session and
further; invite and collect comments for presentation to the Executive
Committee." WE DON'T DO THIS! Unless we change the rules, or unless we
change our habits, we will violate the rules every time we make a rules
change. [While we sometimes send a note to stds-802-all, this obviously
doesn't satisfy the rule literally, and it doesn't satisfy it in spirit

I think that, as an SEC, we ought to put more homework into proposed
changes before they go to ballot. This would make for a more efficient


Tony Jeffree []
8/28/2002 6:25 AM

I agree with the intent of this change; however, I have to vote
as I see no reason why we would ever do anything other than an
ballot, now or in the future. In other words, rather than fixing up the 
text to deal with both paper and electronic ballots, I believe we should

fix up the text to remove paper ballots and to make it clear that all 
balloting that we conduct from here on will be electronic.

Rationale: There is absolutely no point in incurring the expense & 
administrative pain of paper balloting given that we have a better, more

efficient, and cheaper alternative in the form of electronic balloting.
believe we will never conduct any more paper ballots in the future - I,
one, would not vote to approve expenditure of LMSC funds on a paper
in the unlikely event of one being proposed, and I suspect I wouldn't be

the only Exec member with that view. Therefore, we shouldn't complicate
rules by trying to accommodate two mechanisms where one is all that we 
actually need.