Laszlo,
I am loathe to step into the conversation, because Jim's responses have been
correct.
But as the chair of the sponsoring committee, I am perplexed by your
continuation on this point. It is impossible for P1619 to follow a procedure or
policy other than the one published without a modification of that policy. You
are free to suggest such a change, but you are not entitled to an on-the-fly
deviation from the policy or even to agreement by the present voting members to
a change.
It has been traditional within IEEE groups that voting status was based
strictly on physical attendance at face meetings. Some IEEE working groups
still maintain that requirement. Others optionally count participation in
teleconference meetings as equal to attendance at face meetings. I do not know
of any IEEE working groups that count email participation toward the attendance
requirement for voting. Perhaps there are, but they must be very rare.
A working group may follow any approved policy that is published in advance,
and that policy may allow a range of conditions for voting status.
The main point of fairness is to publish a policy in advance of voting and to
adhere to the policy. It would be unfair to others who have invested in the
effort of attending face meetings or in teleconferences to now open voting to
those who simply exchange email.
Are you unable to attend meetings or participate in teleconferences? Or is it
simply the case that you want voting status now without investing time in
sufficient meetings or teleconferences to qualify as a voter? How do you
suggest that a change in policy be reconciled with existing group members,
realizing that a change requires a significant percentage of existing members
to approve? How would the group quantify email participation? Without a metric,
anyone who sent an email message would qualify, presumably even spammers.
What P1619 has done is fair to all, unless someone has been excluded from face
meetings or teleconferences. Have you?
Please suggest a change to the published policy that the group can consider,
according to the existing policy.
If you have been excluded from meetings, please let know, and I and the
Standards Actvity Boards will find a remedy.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 2/5/2006 11:52 AM
To: SISWG
Cc:
Subject: RE: voting procedures for the working group to send P1619 on
to IEEE balloting?
>> The word "attending" includes teleconferences.
I noticed that. It has nothing to do with email discussions.
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: voting procedures for the working group to send P1619 on
> to IEEE balloting?
> From: james hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, February 04, 2006 11:10 pm
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: james hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SISWG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The word "attending" includes teleconferences.
>
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> "Voting membership is granted after attending 2 meetings in the
> >>> previous 12 months, including the current meeting."
> > It does not look fair. Participating in email discussions should
count
> > as physically (or remotely) attending a meeting.
> >
> > Laszlo
> >
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject: Re: voting procedures for the working group to send P1619
on
> >> to IEEE balloting?
> >> From: Fabio Maino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Date: Fri, February 03, 2006 9:32 pm
> >> To: james hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc: Landon Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SISWG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >> Attendance list is enclosed.
> >>
> >> Companies that have attended two meetings (marked in "bold" in the
> >> excel
> >> sheet) are entitled to vote.
> >>
> >> There are a few companies that have attended one meeting: Voting
> >> rules
> >>
> >> state that "Voting membership is granted after attending 2
> >> meetings in
> >>
> >> the previous 12 months, including the current meeting." Those
> >> companies
> >>
> >> will be then allowed to vote on the draft by attending next
> >> meeting or
> >>
> >> conference call.
> >>
> >> Fabio
> >>
> >> james hughes wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Feb 3, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Landon Noll wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Regarding the upcomming ballot for P1619 going on to IEEE
> >> balloting:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Where can I find a list of those companies / represenatives
who
> >>
> >>>> will be allowed to cast a vote?
> >>>> Is there an official list somewhere?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This information is held by Fabio Maino, the secretary.
> >>>
> >>>> 2) What is needed to gain concensus and send P1619 on to IEEE
> >>>> balloting from the working group?
> >>>> 50% of elegable voters? 2/3 of elegable voters? 50% of
those
> >>
> >>>> present? 2/3 of those present?
> >>>> Something else?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For information about the work group balloting (and other) process
> >>> see the document at
> >>> http://www.siswg.org/P1619Procs.pdf
> >>>
> >>>> 3) Has the date been set for the vote? If so, when?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> we are hoping to vote on a document when it is ready to. This has
> >>> not
> >>
> >>> occurred yet.
> >>>
> >>>> 4) Which draft document will we vote on? Where can I get a copy
of
> >>
> >>>> the draft we will vote on?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The yet to be specified document that will be ready. Sorry for the
> >>> circular answers. The process that is going on is public.
> >>>
> >>>> Pardon these "new-bie" questions. I'm just trying to understand
> >> the
> >>>> process.
> >>>>
> >>>> chongo (Landon Curt Noll) /\oo/\
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
