RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
No, I have not said that I am uncomfortable with the idea of the SEC
exercising its responsibility to affirm elections.
However, if the SEC overturns an election, I believe that it should
state a reason and that the reason should be credible.
At 6:38 PM -0700 03/03/19, email@example.com wrote:
>If there were no valid reasons for the SEC to reject choice of
>officers of a working group, there would be no reason to require the
>SEC to affirm such an election. I can't speak to the decision made
>in this particular case, but your arguments seem to assert that you
>aren't comfortable with the idea that the SEC has exercised it
>responsibility to affirm the candidates. I disagree with that
>position. The reason for requiring affirmation is because 802 SEC
>does have a responsibility to pass judgement on the results of the
>election. If that wasn't the case, one would have an appeals process
>for election irregularities rather than an affirmation process.
>That said, lack of sufficient experience in 802 seems a bit weak as
>a basis for rejecting the election results. Some previous chairs
>have had little more than the experience gained while running their
>study group. Granted that having so little experience was a handicap
>in running their groups and they required extra mentoring to get
>over the bumps in the road so it isn't an ideal situation. Perhaps
>the answer is that 802 is raising the desired qualifications based
>on past experience.
>From what I've read on the SEC list so far, it appears that in this
>case process concerns were a substantial portion of the reason for
>the SEC vote.
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:50 AM
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
>I am in Japan, where I've just spent my day in a conference. I can't
>get away from the 802.20 issue; people here have heard what happened
>and are asking me why the 802 SEC would invalidate the elections. I
>still don't know. Since I have nothing better to do here, I'm trying
>to understand it.
>I am not comfortable with the SEC Chair's explanation that "the
>decision was made because the candidates were not qualified due to a
>lack of sufficient experience in 802." Here is why:
>(1) I don't recall the issue of 802 experience being mentioned during
>the SEC meeting.
>(2) What most strikes me about the explanation is that it focuses not
>on the process but simply on the results. The SEC Chair is saying
>that the SEC rejected the 802.20 elections simply because it did not
>like the outcome; in particular, it did not find the elected
>candidates to be suitable for the office to which they were elected
>(because of their lack of 802 experience). My intuition suggests that
>the SEC would not want to go on record as saying that it invalidated
>the elections because of the outcome. But maybe I am wrong about this.
>(3) The SEC voided all three 802.20 elections, not just the one for
>the 802.20 Chair. I don't recalling hearing any discussion of the
>candidates for the two Vice Chair positions, only that there were
>three candidates for each. I don't know which, if any, of the six
>Vice Chair candidates had 802 experience. Perhaps some SEC members
>knew more about this, but I don't recall the SEC probing the issue in
>the meeting. So, I think that the SEC Chair's explanation fails to
>explain why the SEC voided the two Vice Chair elections.
>For all I know, it might be that, in one or both Vice Chair
>elections, none of the three candidates had 802 experience. If that
>was the case, was there any point in holding the election?
>(4) There is no 802 or 802.20 rule requiring 802 experience of a
>Working Group officer. The document "Nominations and Elections of
>Officers for IEEE Working Group 802.20 at the March 10-13, 2003
>Meeting" was issued on March 5. That document included the following
>"Officer Candidate Eligibility
>Individuals running for office must be members of 802.20. Anyone
>running for office must, therefore, satisfy the membership
>requirements by the time the elections are held. In addition
>candidates for Working Group chair need to be prepared to submit a
>'Letter of Support' from their company to the LMSC chair, as
>specified in the LMSC Rules."
>If a Working Group announces a specific statement of candidate
>eligibility, shouldn't individuals be able to accept that those are
>the conditions? How can it be right to turn around later and say,
>"No, I'm sorry, but you should have realized that you are, in fact,
>unacceptable to us."
>(5) Since Friday morning, I have been hearing this idea of the SEC
>voiding the 802.20 chair election because the chair-elect was not
>sufficiently experienced in 802. However, I heard no mention of this
>issue before the elections. Why did 802 experience become an issue
>only afterwards? There is an inconsistency here.
>(6) The election process allows the Working Group to choose the
>leaders it believes are most suitable. Voters can make their choice
>based on the criteria they prefer. Presumably, some voters will
>consider 802 experience before they cast their ballot. However, they
>will consider other issues also. 802 experience may not be at the
>top of some people's list, because any new chair will soon attain it
>anyway. I was named to chair a Study Group at my first 802 Plenary
>and named to chair a Working Group at my second. I learned the ropes.
>If we are worried about someone's experience, then let's provide some
>So, I am still unable to understand why the SEC took this
>extraordinary action that has caused so much surprise around the
>world. I think the world wants, and deserves, a better explanation. I
>think the SEC owes one to the members of 802.20, and it's going to
>need one in order to figure out how to get 802.20 elections that it
>At 2:17 PM -0800 03/03/15, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>>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.
>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:email@example.com]
>>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:17 PM
>>To: Bob O'Hara; firstname.lastname@example.org
>>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: <mailto:email@example.com>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
>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>>Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:55 AM
>>Subject: [802SEC] 802.20 affirmation
>>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.