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

Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

Thanks Dina.  On your first point, is a motion that never received a second a motion that is made?  If so, then what is the purpose of a second?

I’m struggling to understand why referring to Guido Hiertz’s statement should matter to anyone.  If the point that proponents of including the statement are trying to make is that PatCom declined to discuss the issue Guido raised, then the statement David Law read shows that the reason PatCom did not follow up on Guido Hiertz’s invitation to discuss the issue is that it is under discussion in a different group that IEEE-SA has formed specifically to discuss it.  Is there something suspect about an organization choosing to discuss a particular issue in one forum rather than another?

I hope you are staying safe and healthy at this difficult moment.

Best regards,

Gil 



From: Dina Kallay <000012ef4164abe3-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 6:03:21 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online
 
  1. Regardless of personal opinions, Roberts Rules of Order that apply here specifically consider this scenario and, as Jim noted, conclude that all “motions that were not lost or withdrawn” are part of the Minutes. 

 

  1. Gil’s second point is a good one. Indeed the “full text that David Law read in response” to the motion *is* reflected the circulated draft minutes. This is what makes the omission of the motion that preceded it even more incomplete and puzzling (in addition to inconsistent with Robert Rules). Furthermore, apparently the read statement and the motion were equally not seconded or discussed – but only one of them appears in the draft minutes.

 

  1. I agree with the suggestion to correct the deficient draft minutes by adding the bold font sentence as per below:

 

“2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

 

Guido Hiertz proposed adding an agenda item to discuss status re the September 2020 DOJ Business Review Letter to IEEE. His motion failed after not being seconded.

 

In response, Chair Law made the following statement: ….”

 

Sincerely,

 

Dina

 

 

 

From: Gil Ohana (gilohana) <00000b67ee67ba19-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 7:17 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

 

I agree with Don that a motion that failed to attract a second is not a failed motion, it’s a motion that was never made.  To Scott’s point, if we go ahead and include a reference to Guido’s non-seconded motion, we would also need to include the full text that David Law read in response.

 

Best regards,

 

Gil

 

From: Gilfillan, Scott L <scott.l.gilfillan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 3:25 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

 

I don’t have a position either way, but as an academic exercise, does it matter that the motion, even if it had been seconded, would have been mooted by the BOG statement that PatCom Chair Law was – prior to the meeting - directed to read?

 

From: Jim Harlan <Jim.Harlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2020 2:53 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

 

I’m sorry Don, but I respectfully disagree under Robert’s Rules of Order, (link, http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm#60)

 

60. The Minutes. The record of the proceedings of a deliberative assembly is usually called the Minutes, or the Record, or the Journal. The essentials of the record are as follows: … (f) all the main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and points of order and appeals, whether sustained or lost, and all other motions that were not lost or withdrawn;

 

A motion made but not seconded is a failed motion that should be minuted.  It is not a lost or withdrawn motion.

 

Thus, I believe the minutes should be amended to read:

 

“2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

 

Guido Hiertz proposed adding an agenda item to discuss status re the September 2020 DOJ Business Review Letter to IEEE. His motion failed after not being seconded.

 

In response, Chair Law made the following statement: ….”

 

Or something to that effect.

 

Jim Harlan • Senior Director, Standards & Competition Policy • InterDigital, Inc.

515 C St NE, Washington, DC 20002 • T: +1 202-349-1713 • Jim.Harlan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

From: Don Wright <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 4:48 PM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

 

 

A motion made but not seconded is not consider by the body and is treated as if it was never made.  Therefore, it is not recorded in the minutes.

-----

Don Wright, President

Standards Strategies, LLC

10420 Vista Hills Blvd

Louisville, Ky 40291

+1 859-396-7812

don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

VP, IEEE SA Products and Services Innovation       

Past President, IEEE Standards Association.      

Member, IEEE SA BoG.      

Member, IEEE SA CAG.       

Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors                      

Member, IEEE Governance Committee

Past Member, IEEE Board of Directors

Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board

Past Chair, INCITS Executive Board

 

On Dec 4, 2020, at 5:33 PM, Kolakowski, John (Nokia - US) <john.kolakowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Hello Dave et al.,

 

I think these minutes are incomplete because they don’t reflect the motion that Guido Hiertz made, in which he proposed adding an agenda item to discuss status re the September 2020 DOJ Business Review Letter to IEEE.  His motion failed after not being seconded by another member of PatCom, but shouldn’t the motion and its failure be reflected in the minutes nonetheless for the sake of completeness?

 

Thanks,

John Kolakowski

 

From: Dave Ringle <d.ringle@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 11:04 AM
To: PP-DIALOG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PP-DIALOG] IEEE SA Standards Board Patent Committee (PatCom) - December 2020 meeting minutes available online

 

 

Regards,

******************************************************************
David L. Ringle
Director, IEEE-SA Governance
IEEE Standards Association
445 Hoes Lane                              
Piscataway, NJ  08854-4141 USA
TEL: +1 732 562 3806
FAX: +1 732 875 0524               
EMAIL: d.ringle@xxxxxxxx
******************************************************************

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1

To unsubscribe from the PP-DIALOG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=PP-DIALOG&A=1