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

Re: [802SEC] The 802.20 election procedure for July


I am strongly, stridently, opposed to organizations blocking
progress by flooding a WG with members. 

> One member, one vote. That's the way we do business in 802.
Except for which recognizes the requirement of
802 chairs to insure the process is fair.

As I have said in the past, .17 has the situation where
many companies (including my own) have large percentages 
of the voting members. 

We have used roll call votes on rare occasions, but they
serve their purpose, of which there are two. 

1) It provides me with proof as to voting patterns so that 
I can determine if I have a need to invoke 
2) It provides the WG with focus as to who is responsible 
for a blocking move and tends to force the parties to 
discuss things. 

In the past of dot17, progress was blocked once by an organization, 
but the situation was resolved by the next session. Alot 
of discussion between sessions was able to clarify the 
issue such that no major changes were made to the draft, 
but everyone's concerns were addressed. 

As I have also previously stated, taking the roll call results
and changing them into 1 company 1 vote did not have a affect
on the result. Therefore the integrity of 1 member 1 vote
was not compromised. However, if there is a change in the 
outcome of a vote, then I believe that proof of domination
has occured. 

Hence my suggestion as to how to hold the election for
802.20 in July. No disenfranchisement, but a reasonableness
test on the result.  Then lets clean up the rules to
age people out faster.

While I appreciate the rhetorical skill that you display in 
asking what next, I believe I was quite clear in my suggestion 
that consultants name their sponsor and that this requirement
is both reasonable and limited in its reach. Futhermore,
the analysis of the election results (or any other vote) is



"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> I am strongly, stridently, opposed to voting by organization or
> asking people to declare allegiance.
> What next: we ask Working Group members to disclose their investment
> portfolios, and those of their brother-in-law? Maybe a blue-ribbon
> SEC commission (the one that is supposed to "analyze the results")
> can interview each working group member and decide what in which
> interest group pigeonhole they belong?
> One member, one vote. That's the way we do business in 802.
> Roger
> >Hi Everyone,
> >
> >This is an outshoot from my WG initial membership interpretation
> >effort.  An issue I have heard raised a number of times from LMSC EC
> >members is the question of what procedure should be followed for
> >elections by 802.20 in July.  Personally, I think it is
> >inappropriate for us to "force" them to use a specific procedure.
> >On the other hand, clearly people in 802.20 are wondering "what they
> >can change" that would improve the chances of their officers being
> >confirmed next time around.  Based on reflector discussions to date,
> >the election procedure itself seems to have been a concern at least
> >to some EC members.  Given that, I think it might make sense if we
> >"recommend" a procedure that might address the concerns of these EC
> >members.  In my mind we could make a motion recommending a
> >particular procedure, and have this presented to 802.20 at the
> >upcoming interim.  Mike Takefman has put forward the most detailed
> >election procedure I have seen suggested to date.  Extracting from
> >one of Mike's recent e-mails that procedure would be:
> >
> >Everyone who attended 75% of the initial session gets to vote in
> >July. All consultants should declare who their client is. The
> >elections (and probably every other vote) should be by roll call.
> >The SEC should then analyze the results as both 1 organization 1
> >vote and straight and determine if any difference in result would
> >occur. If the vote is reverse on a 1 company 1 vote basis, then
> >that vote should be taken as final.
> >
> >Personally, I'm okay with everything but the last step.  From
> > of the LMSC P&P I believe the WG Chair's job is to:
> >
> >             "Determine if the Working Group is dominated by an
> >organization, and, if so, treat that organizations' vote as one
> >(with the approval of the Executive Committee)."
> >
> >I'm not sure if the last step in Mike's process is the best way to
> >do that.  What do other people think?
> >
> >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

Michael Takefman    
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