Jack, I had said that it was unfair to exclude active participants of the email discussions from voting, if they had been unable to attend meetings. A correct response could have been something like "I know, but we cannot help".
>> Jim's responses have been correct. No. Jim did not respond to my note with his remarks about teleconferences. I merely pointed that out in my follow up email. They are different, unrelated things. >> those who simply exchange email Writing a meaningful email is not "simple". Shai distributed correctness proofs via email, and it is much more valuable than sitting in a meeting without saying anything. These emails take more time, more thoughts and represent more effort. >> Are you unable to attend meetings or participate in teleconferences? I attended enough meeting, so I am entitled to vote for my employer, as you could see in the list Fabio has sent. I've never said anything about my participation in meetings, so I don't understand what you are speaking about. >> Please suggest a change to the published policy that the group can consider I did that implicitly. If someone had significantly contributed to the work of the WG via phone, email or written correspondence, s/he should be allowed to vote for his employer. Or, alternatively, if one employee cannot vote, another employee of the company should be allowed to replace him/her in the ballot. It could effect anybody. For example, if I would not be able to vote (in theory), one of my colleagues, who did not attend enough meetings, should be able to cast a vote, reflecting the company's interests (because we are not representing our individual views, but that of our employer). But these would probably be only theoretical cases. I don't want to waste our time for yet another long discussion. Just keep these in mind for the next time we participate in a standards group. Laszlo > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: voting procedures for the working group to send P1619 on > to IEEE balloting? > From: "Cole, John (Civ, ARL/CISD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, February 05, 2006 1:13 pm > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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/\ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >>
