Re: [802SEC] Some Thoughts on 802.20 Elections
Based on the evidence presented at the SEC meeting, BOTH
sides stuffed the ballot box. That may not support the
allegations of one side, but to me it gives more than
enough evidence for the SEC to step in.
Had the vote gone the other way, and had the other side
complained, I would still be calling for a roll call vote
with an analysis of voting distribution to give each
company (plus their consultants) 1 vote.
Bob O'Hara wrote:
> The sheet shown by Mr. Klerer showed (I am guessing here, since he has
> not provided the presentation to me, as secretary for the minutes) about
> 50 members belonging companies he divided into to columns. I would be
> very hard to convince that the roughly 25 people represented in the
> left-hand column could be considered to "dominate" a working group that
> had a voting membership of more than 180. Had the folks in the
> right-hand column won the day, would we be considering if they
> "dominate" the working group? I very much doubt it.
> As I said in my first email in this topic, NO EVIDENCE was presented to
> support the allegations made at the closing SEC meeting.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:44 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Some Thoughts on 802.20 Elections
> I really don't want to turn this into dueling rules
> interpretations (since you are far far better a
> parlimentarian :), but the rules (220.127.116.11 item e))
> do state that the chair is responsible for determining
> if the working group is dominated by a single organization.
> I take a liberal interpretation of this as shown in
> my email, to determine if the overall membership is
> In my opinion, the sheet shown by Mr. Klerer at the SEC
> meeting is proof enough that something was up. Therefore,
> it is completely appropriate for the SEC to step in.
> As a side issue, it is my personal opinion that it
> was inappropriate to have a secret ballot, that is where
> the wheels first came off the rails. Furthermore, once it
> became clear that the room was being stuffed (by all
> sides), warning bells should have been ringing. But
> hindsight is 20-20.
> Secret ballots may prevent coercion, but they do aid in
> collusion. If 802 is about open process, I think all
> parties must be willing to vote via roll call.
> Bob O'Hara wrote:
> > I don't see any way to address the questions of block voting or
> > of the ballot, under the rules by which the 802.20 election was held.
> > In general, it is a decision of the body, made by a motion passed by
> > simple majority, that is needed to require a roll call vote, or the
> > equivalent of having the ballots signed by the voters. The election
> > process is supposed to be secret, even to the ballot counters, to
> > prevent coercion of the voters. Only the voters, themselves, have the
> > right to change that.
> > So, as far as I can tell, the only thing that we will have the ability
> > to change by the time 802.20 elections are held again is to force some
> > period of time to pass.
> > -Bob
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Lansford [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:50 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] Some Thoughts on 802.20 Elections
> > SEC Members,
> > I generally agree with Mike...
> > 1) Experience has never been listed as a requirement for office.
> > it
> > should be, but it isn't currently.
> > 2) Changing the rules retroactively for initial voting membership is
> > of
> > bounds, in my opinion. We have elaborate rules for gaining voting
> > rights
> > after formation, but initial rights are not consistent with that - we
> > need
> > to fix it, but it's too late for 802.20. There is "organizational
> > inertia"
> > built into the system over time, but the initial conditions are the
> > problem.
> > 3) Voting questions are legitimate to raise, and a secret ballot
> > give us any insight into how the voters aligned. If Geoff runs a
> > roll-call
> > ballot with the same voter pool, these questions can be put to rest.
> > I think Geoff's credibility and a solid audit trail can hopefully
> > this
> > behind us with a minimum of damage.
> > Best regards,
> > Jim
> > Jim Lansford, Ph.D.
> > VP, Business Development
> > Mobilian Corporation
> > Chair, IEEE 802.19 Coexistence TAG
> > email@example.com
> > www.ieee802.org/19
> > Phone: +1 405 377 6170
> > Fax: +1 425 671 6099
> > Mobile: +1 405 714 0074
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Mike
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:19 AM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: [802SEC] Some Thoughts on 802.20 Elections
> > Dear SEC,
> > Here are my thoughts on the issue of the 802.20
> > election. I abstained from voting on all aspects
> > of this issue as I did not have sufficient time to
> > properly consider all that went on, and not having
> > been an observer of the election process (as dot17 was
> > still in closing plenary).
> > Having had sufficient time to reflect since the
> > closing meeting, I would now feel comfortable with
> > voting NOT to confirm the elections. However, the
> > experience of the candidates is not a central issue
> > to me, but rather the large degree of ballot box
> > stuffing that occured on all sides of the election.
> > I would also vote NOT to change the membership
> > rules retroactively to disenfranchise anyone under
> > the old rules.
> > From inception, 802.17 has been in a state where
> > several companies had a "large" pool of voters
> > based on both the initial meeting and sending sufficient
> > people over 3 meetings to gain rights the "normal" way.
> > All of these companies had been very active during
> > the SG phase of the project, so the concept of highjacking
> > a WG from the people who got the project started is not
> > a factor.
> > From the very begining I have been closely monitoring all
> > votes to determine if domination by a single entity has occured.
> > This has been aided by roll call votes on any issue where
> > there appears to be strong polarization. In those cases
> > I did a post meeting analysis of the votes to determine if
> > modifying the vote (to be by company) would have changed the
> > result. There have been only a small number of cases where
> > the vote would have reversed on a major issue. In all such
> > cases, the issue was essentially resolved by the next meeting
> > (and concensus was achieved). Thus no single entity has
> > sucessfully delayed the WG for more than 2 months.
> > Additionally, with the exception of a single consultant,
> > there has never been a case where the sponsor of a consultant
> > was not KNOWN to the WG. And eventually the sponsor of that
> > consultant became known. When counting the consultants
> > as a company employee (and hence removing their vote) the results
> > of the vote would not have changed substantively.
> > My suggestion for a way forward on this result is to expand
> > on something that Matt said at the SEC closing meeting. I
> > would suggest the following process occur.
> > I would request that all consultants declare who their sponsor
> > is and for the sponsor to confirm. Clearly, we cannot force this
> > issue, but as the 802 process is open, then clearly the consultants
> > and their sponsors should not be hesitant to do so. Also, any
> > consultant who fails to do so, leaves a taint on the candidate who
> > they voted for. So unless someone was so machiavellian as to arrange
> > to have their consultants vote for the other guy, the lack of
> > disclosure will not splatter unfairly.
> > Now that we can properly identify "organizations", have the
> > interim chair run an email roll call vote. Failure of the
> > vote to produce the same results as in the meeting would cause the
> > vote to be thrown out and a new roll call vote to be held at
> > the July session. If the results match the meeting results, then
> > the analysis of the results on a one company one vote basis
> > should be valid and can help determine if anything untoward
> > occured.
> > Had companies behaved reasonably, in terms of the number of
> > voters they sent, then the legitimacy of the March
> > vote would not be called into question.
> > Should the result be upheld, the election should
> > stand and the officers should take their positions at the
> > end of the July session having had the experience of mentorship
> > by the interim chair.
> > If not, the interesting effect of all of this, is that all companies
> > will have sent people to three meetings of the WG and hence qualify
> > unambiguously for the right to vote. However, the issue of
> > "box stuffing" will remain, hence my suggestion that this
> > vote be by roll call in any event.
> > The advantage of waiting for the next plenary session to hold
> > the vote is that it would give all candidates sufficient time to
> > be fully conversant with 802 process and procedure and be ready
> > to take on the task of WG officers as they will have Geoff as
> > a role model.
> > I hope this helps, as I believe it sets out a process to resolve
> > the issue as well as expectations on the interim chair in terms
> > of success.
> > regards,
> > mike
> > --
> > Michael Takefman email@example.com
> > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> Michael Takefman firstname.lastname@example.org
> Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
Michael Takefman email@example.com
Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991