RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
There following were the reasons why I voted against the confirmation
motion:
1) It seemed to me that the candidates had not demonstrated a significant
track record of participation in the work of the study group/working
group (and by "significant track record" I mean the kind of
track record that would result in an individual gaining voting rights in
an established WG); and
2) It seemed to me that the candidates had no significant track record of
participation in the recent work of 802; and
3) I have never been comfortable with the concept that membership in a
new WG can be obtained by a first-time 802 participant; however, in the
case of previous new WGs, we have not seen the unprecedented number of
new voters that we had last week in 802.20, so this had not hitherto been
a significant enough issue to call attention to the need for a change in
rules. I am very uncomfortable indeed that a decision as important to the
running of a new WG as electing its officers was taken last week by a
voting membership of which significantly more than half were first-time
participants in that activity.
So, to answer the question as to what would need to change for me to be
prepared to affirm a future set of officers elected in .20, or in any
other new WG for that matter, the answer is that they would have to be
able to show a "significant track record" in the WG and/or the
SG meetings that were its precursor, and similarly, the voting membership
that elects them would have to be able to show a "significant track
record" of participation in the WG and/or the SG.
Both Bob O'Hara and Geoff Thompson have raised the question as to what
the rules say with regard to criteria for determining whether a candidate
for WG office is or is not suitable. The reality is that the rules are
largely silent on this issue, other than the last para of 3.2 Membership,
which requires Exec members "...prior to confirmation...[to] file
with the Recording secretary a letter of endorsement...[that] shall
contain at least the following: 1. Statement of qualification based on
technical expertise to fulfill the assignment...". So technical
expertise is clearly identified in our rules as a requirement, although
no guidance is given as to the criteria by which that should be judged.
The only other requirement I could find is that Exec members are required
to be IEEE or IEEE Computer society members or affiliates (but I
suspect that this should now read "IEEE SA" rather than
"IEEE or IEEE Computer society", so this itself may be another
bug).
However, it is clear that any individual voting on such a question must
apply *some* set of criteria, otherwise they would be unable to determine
how to vote, so it would seem clear that individuals are free to choose
whatever criteria might be appropriate to them, and past experience of
802 and/or of the relevant Study Group seem to me to be at least as
reasonable as any other criteria for judging relevant technical
expertise, and maybe significantly better criteria than most.
Moving on to wider questions of what the current LMSC rules do/do not say
on membership, voting, and election of officers, it seems to me that at
least the following anomalies/problems exist:
1) As pointed out above, while 3.2 clearly requires that a statement of
technical expertise is a requirement for SEC membership, it doesn't
identify how that expertise might be assessed, so presumably a statement
of the form "I have no such expertise" could be acceptable
under the current rules. I don't believe that to be appropriate. Also,
the otherwise complete silence on the subject of what constitutes
acceptable credentials for WG office;
2) In passing (but not directly relevant to the current topic), 3.4
states that voting on the Exec is by a simple majority. As at least some
RR motions require other than a simple majority, and the text of (for
example) 3.6.2 of our rules requires a 2/3 majority, this appears to be a
straightforward bug.
3) 3.1 Function (of the Exec) states that one of the Exec functions is to
"b) Appoint the initial Chairs of the Working Groups and Technical
Advisory Groups. (The Chairs of Working Groups and Technical Advisory
Groups are confirmed or elected by the Working Group and Technical
Advisory Group members themselves.)". The initial statement clearly
places the responsibility for appointment with the Exec; however, the
subsequent statements in parens appear to be at odds with this initial
sentence. This is also at odds with 5.1.2 which states that "LMSC
Working Group Chairs and Vice Chairs shall be elected by the Working
Group and confirmed by the LMSC Executive Committee. ..... Initial
appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies due to
resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC,
and shall be valid until the end of the next Plenary session."
Further, 3.2 seems to imply that the WG/TAG Chairs are appointed
(presumably by the SEC) and affirmed by the WG/TAG.
So we seem to have three possibilities as to the proper procedure for
appointing an initial WG chair: 1) that Chair appointments are made by
the SEC (and confirmed by the WG); 2) that the WG elects, and the SEC
confirms; and 3) that initial appointments may be made by the SEC Chair,
but only for 1 Plenary session period. This means that there is at least
one possible interpretation of our current rules (using the text of 3.1)
that would indicate that the procedure conducted by the 802.20 WG was
actually not the correct way to determine its Officers.
4) The by now well known problems with the text of 5.1.3, some of which
may be fixed by Matt's proposed rule changes. These include:
a) The
ability for people to gain WG membership at a single session, which I
(and some others on the Exec) consider to be undesirable. Also, the
confusion between "session" and "meeting" in the
first sentence of 5.1.3.1, leading to the conclusion that only those
people present at the first meeting of the initial WG session gain a
vote;
b) The
fact that, if anyone does happen to gain membership of a new WG "at
its initial WG meeting" (sic), they must immediately lose membership
again, as they cannot, by definition, meet the requirement for qualifying
attendance at 2 out of the last 4 Plenary sessions;
c) The
fact that the second sentence of 5.1.3.1 incorrectly interchanges the
terms "session" and "meeting" . The resultant text
means that there are a wide range of possible interpretations of the
requirements for qualifying attendance at a session, ranging from a
participation requirement of 75% of one meeting during a session at one
extreme, to a participation requirement of 75% of all meetings during a
session at the other extreme.
d) In
5.1.3.2, it is not clear that "participating" refers back to
the definition of that term in 5.1.3.1.
5) The first para of 3.2 states that "Membership [of the Exec] is
retained as in Working Groups (see Retention)." This is an
interesting statement, as it has at least two consequences:
1) It
appears to require all Exec members to maintain voting rights in a WG *by
attendance at WG meetings* in order to maintain their position on the
Exec;
2) It
appears to have the same bug that exists in 4) b) above, namely that as
currently stated, the rules mean that a Chair of a new WG would
immediately lose membership of the Exec after being appointed, unless
they happened to have valid membership of some other 802 WG at the time.
The obvious let-out of the person concerned using his/her Chair's
discretion to maintain his/her own voting rights doesn't work here, as
the reference to "retention" is specific.
I suspect that the real intent of 3.2 is that an Exec member maintains
Exec membership by attending (75% of) Exec meetings during a session, but
that is not what the words say. Interestingly, the SEC Chair doesn't seem
to have the same discretion in allocating SEC voting rights as the WG
Chairs do in their WGs.
So, what can we conclude from the above that is relevant to the current
situation?
- Indisputably, the current rules in this area are an almighty mess, and
the fact that we have any coherent policy for assessing voting membership
in any of our WGs is only as a result of established practice and the use
of the Chair's discretion, and not of the wording of the rules as they
stand. However, given the fact that the 802 rules have superior authority
to any WG rules, whether that established practice is at all valid is
itself an open question. Hence, right now, I believe the only valid
path for gaining membership in any WG is at the discretion of the
relevant WG chair.
- Arguably, under the provisions of 3.1 and 3.2 of the rules, the
responsibility for initial appointment was ours (the SEC's) all along. If
we take this view, then the election in 802.20 should never have been
characterized as anything more than offering the SEC a preference, as the
procedures used by .20 were never discussed and/or approved by the SEC,
and the SEC did not delegate its authority.
- Arguably, 5.1.2 called for a WG election to take place. If we take this
view, then the rules called for the Exec to affirm .20's election result;
however, the Exec clearly has the option of declining to affirm, so even
here, it should never have been the expectation that the election in .20
was anything more than a recommendation to the SEC that it could take or
leave.
- Indisputably, the rules do call for candidates for WG Chair to give a
written "statement of qualification based on technical expertise to
fulfill the assignment", and to be IEEE/Computer Society members,
*before* they are affirmed. My personal view is that the test of
technical expertise would have been satisfied by candidates that could
have shown a "significant track record" (as I have defined
above).
- Even if we had voted to affirm the appointments on Friday, the .20 WG
Chair would by now no longer be a member of the Exec, as (under the
provisions of 3.2) his lack of past participation in the WG would lose
him his Exec membership. (Strictly speaking, this also applies to those
non-WG Chair SEC members that do not currently attend the meetings of a
WG.)
Regards,
Tony
At 10:22 16/03/2003 -0500, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Paul,
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.
Mat
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
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara
[mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:18 PM
To: Paul Nikolich; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
Paul,
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.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:17 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
Bob,
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."
--Paul
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Bob O'Hara
- To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
- 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-----
- From: Paul Nikolich
[mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
- 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.
-