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

RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation

Title: Message



At least for me there were many reasons why I abstained on the confirmation vote.  The experience issue was part of it, especially as it relates to the membership rules change.   But certainly this is not the whole story.  One of the key reasons for me was that someone from the audience was will to come up to the mike and go on record that they believed “there were improprieties in the election process for 802.20.”  (taken from the draft minutes).  Clearly there was doubt in my mind based on many issues concerning the validity of the process followed or I would have affirmed.  What I would suggest is that maybe we need an SEC conference call to try and draft a more explicit statement on what happened.  If you and Geoff will be in NJ next week, perhaps we can all get together and host one.  But honestly, I think each of us probably has a different perspective on what was said and what influenced their vote.  I think the most important thing to do is to endeavor to make the minutes publicly available as soon as reasonably possible.  However I recognize that completing the minutes is not an easy job, and it may take a while till they are available.  Once the minutes are available we can simply reference people to those minutes, and the e-mail trail on this reflector.  For the moment, rather than give an official opinion, you can always provide your personal view of what happened with the caveat that it is your personal view.  Just a suggestion.




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

-----Original Message-----
Bob O'Hara []
Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:18 PM
Paul Nikolich;
Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation




Even this, relaxed, statement is not supported by what was said at the meeting.  All that I recall that was said was that they did not participate in the study group. 


-----Original Message-----
Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:17 PM
Bob O'Hara;
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation



I did not mean to indicate the candidates had zero experience in 802.  Howver, you are correct that the statement reads that way.  I modify my statement as follows: "In my view, the decision was made because the candidates were not qualified due to a lack of sufficient experience in 802."




----- Original Message -----

From: Bob O'Hara

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:07 PM

Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation


I'm sorry Paul, but that point was never made during the meeting and can't be assumed to be part of anyone's decision yesterday.  I certainly don't agree with it.  I believe that the decision was made for entirely unsupportable reasons.  The only point that was made regarding the individuals elected by 802.20 was that they had not participated in the study group, not that they had no experience in 802.  Certainly, the elected chair of 802.20 had previous experience in 802 and extensive experience in other standards-making organizations.  Your position is not a reflection of the facts.


Regarding the decision of the SEC not to affirm the elections of 802.20, there was no evidence presented of any irregular procedures, failure to follow published procedures, or irregularity in the voting.  My position, as I stated at the SEC meeting, is that all procedures were followed scrupulously and the elections, which I observed as an SEC member, were without protest by any person present at the 802.20 meeting.  As far as I can tell, the decision not to affirm was made on the unsupported allegations of two individual participants in 802.20.  Are we prepared to invalidate every other working group decision that requires SEC affirmation with the same level of evidence, i.e., two allegations unsupported by any evidence?


Indeed, no concrete guidance was provided to the appointed interim chair of 802.20 on how not to wind up in exactly the same situation when the next elections are held.  Is the SEC prepared to affirm the elections, if the same candidates are nominated and elected at the July meeting?  Is a single 802 meeting experience enough?  If not, where is it written in our Policies and Procedures (formerly our Rules) that you have to have some number of meetings under your belt before you can become an officer of a working group?


I can't support the opinion you offered as to why the election of the officers was not affirmed by the SEC.  If asked, I will offer my own, quite different, opinion.

 -Bob O'Hara

-----Original Message-----
Paul Nikolich []
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:55 AM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation

Dear SEC,


People will want to know why the SEC did not affirm the 802.20 officer candidates presented to at the closing plenary meeting.  I have already had two inquiries.  In my view, the decision was made because the candidates were not qualified due to lack of experience in 802.




--Paul Nikolich