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

Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally

Roger,

The nature of the motion I made is that its result (pass or fail) would only be relevant if Paul failed to rule on the validity of the TAG approval vote before the motion concluded. The motion was to delay release until Paul ruled. 

If Paul ruled before the vote on my motion finished, then the condition in the motion would be satisfied and the document would be forwarded or not based on Paul's ruling. 

If the vote on my motion had finished before Paul ruled and the motion passed, then the document would be held up until Paul ruled. If the vote on my motion finished before Paul ruled and the motion had failed, the document would be released. However, I felt I could count on Paul to rule before that happened so I didn't particularly care if the motion passed (and I assume realization of that is why some people didn't bother to vote).

Regards,
Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:41 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally

Paul,

I don't think I understand this analysis. But, that issue aside, it 
seems to me that what you are saying is that the actions following 
this motion are independent of whether or not the motion passed.

EC ballots take quite a bit of time and energy. If a proposed motion 
is such that the outcome will be identical, regardless of whether or 
not the motion passes, then should the Chair rule the motion out of 
order? This could save us all some work.

Roger



At 18:16 -0400 2005-10-10, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>Roger,
>
>You are correct--if the EC motion passed the EC must be given a 
>chance to consider it instead of 'should have.'   However, the 
>results of the TAG email ballot is 'new information' and I believe 
>the EC should have a chance to consider the new information and have 
>the option to register disapproval before releasing the 
>communication automatically..
>
>Regards,
>
>--Paul
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
>To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 6:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release 
>of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>
>
>>Pat,
>>
>>Yes, I agree that what I said is not what you said. I was not 
>>attempting to restate your entire point. My intent was simply to 
>>agree that we should skip the second five-day review.
>>
>>I would still like to understand, based on Paul's analysis, how the 
>>current situation would differ if the motion had passed.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>>
>>At 15:48 -0600 2005-10-10, <pat_thaler@agilent.com> wrote:
>>>Roger, that isn't what I said. The motion was only to delay 
>>>release until Paul ruled. His ability and need to rule wasn't 
>>>changed by whether the motion passed or failed. He has ruled that 
>>>the conditions of the P&P for TAG vote weren't met.
>>>
>>>I agree with what he is doing as far as that goes. On the other 
>>>hand, I think an additional 5 days of delay would be pushing 
>>>things to far so I'd like him to rule that in the current somewhat 
>>>upside down situation he will consider that the EC 5 day review 
>>>has had plenty of time to run and doesn't need to be repeated 
>>>after the TAG voting flaw is fixed.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Pat
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>>Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 10:40 AM
>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay 
>>>release of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>I agree with Pat. The TAG communication can proceed unless a motion
>>>to block is made, in which case "release of the position statement
>>>will be withheld until the motion fails."
>>>
>>>The motion failed.
>>>
>>>How would we be proceeding differently if the motion had passed?
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>At 11:11 -0600 2005-10-10, Pat Thaler wrote:
>>>>Paul,
>>>>
>>>>Is there some way that we can consider the 5 day P&P period to have
>>>>already been allowed to run? While what you suggest meets the
>>>>"letter of the law," we have already seen the document. I don't
>>>>think that the fact that the validity of the vote in the TAG was
>>>>questioned and the vote had to be rerun raises any issues that need
>>>>a new review period. Perhaps we need a day to see the results of the
>>>>new ballot and then can move on.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Pat
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET]
>>>>Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:54 AM
>>>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release
>>>>of 802.18 communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>>>>
>>>>Dear EC members,
>>>>
>>>>Given the failure of the motion, I occurs to me that I must clarify what
>>>>state the 802.18 TAG communication is in; it is pending final approval by
>>>>the TAG and the EC.
>>>>
>>>>My rationale is as follows.  The motion to delay the release until the I
>>>>made a ruling failed.  However there was ambiguoity in my mind as 
>>>>to whether
>>>>or not adequate TAG approval had been reached in the first place. Therefore
>>>>I requested the chair of the 802.18 TAG conduct an email ballot to resolve
>>>>the ambiguoity as to whether or not adequate approval from the TAG was
>>>>obtained for the communcation.  That ballot closed Tuesday 4OCT.   The TAG
>>>>email ballot must receive 75% approval of all TAG members in order to be
>>>>presented to the EC for review.  If the TAG email ballot passed and after
>>>>Mike Lynch notifies the EC of the result it may proceed as per 
>>>>the P&P (i.e.
>>>>within 5 days of notice, or after a EC motion to block fails--see P&P
>>>>below).
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>>
>>>>The 802 P&P regarding TAG communcations with governement bodies states:
>>>>
>>>>"Working Group or TAG Communications
>>>>Working Group or TAG communications with government bodies shall not be
>>>>released without prior approval by a 75% majority of the Working Group or
>>>>TAG. Such communications may proceed unless blocked by an EC vote. For
>>>>position statements not presented for review in an EC meeting, EC members
>>>>shall have a review period of at least five days; if, during that time, a
>>>>motion to block it is made, release of the position statement will be
>>>  >withheld until the motion fails. "
>>>>
>>>>Upon my request the
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>>>>To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:36 PM
>>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18
>>>>communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005+++final tally
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear EC members,
>>>>
>>>>The final tally on the below motion is 6APP/4DIS/0ABS/6DNV.  Since the
>>>>motion did not receive a majority of the EC voting members (9) the motion
>>>>fails.
>>>>
>>>>Note that Mike Lynch has conducted an email ballot of the TAG on 
>>>>this matter
>>>>and will be publishing the result shortly to the EC reflector.  Mike, when
>>>>you publish the result, please note that a majority of TAG 
>>>>members must vote
>>>>in the affirmative in order for the motion to pass.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>--Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Vote categories:          DIS    DNV     APP    ABS
>>>>    -----------------------------------------------
>>>>    01 Mat Sherman+         DIS
>>>>    02 Pat Thaler+                         APP
>>>>    03 Buzz Rigsbee+        DIS
>>>>    04 Bob O'Hara                  DNV
>>>>    05 John Hawkins+                       APP
>>>>    06 Tony Jeffree+                       APP
>>>>    07 Bob Grow+            DIS
>>>>    08 Stuart Kerry                DNV
>>>>    09 Bob Heile                   DNV
>>>>    10 Roger Marks+         DIS
>>>>    11 Mike Takefman               DNV
>>>>    12 Mike Lynch                  DNV
>>>>    13 Steve Shellhammer+                  APP
>>>>    14 Jerry Upton+                        APP
>>>>    15 Ajay Rajkumar               DNV
>>>>    16 Carl Stevenson+                     APP
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>>    TOTALS                  DIS    DNV     APP    ABS
>>>>                             4      6       6      0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>>>>To: <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 11:16 AM
>>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++EC email ballot+++ motion to delay release of 802.18
>>>>communication+++ends 3 OCT 2005
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dear EC Memebers,
>>>>
>>>>The below EC motion has been made, recognized and seconded, hence I am
>>>>conducting this EC email ballot.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, I move to delay release of the communication until Paul Nikolich
>>>>has ruled on whether the requirements of 14.2 for a TAG vote have been met.
>>>>Moved: Pat Thaler
>>>>Second: Bob Grow
>>>>
>>>>The ballot closes the sooner of 3 OCT 2005 or 24 hours after all EC members
>>>>cast a ballot.
>>>>
>>>>Mike Lynch--in parallel with this email ballot, I strongly encourage you to
>>>>immediately conduct an email ballot of the 802.18 TAG members to remove all
>>>>doubt as to whether or not the communication has received proper
>>>>consideration by the TAG and provide timely updates to the EC such that the
>>>>EC can observe the progress of the email ballot.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>>--Paul Nikolich
>>>>

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.