Re: [sv-bc] RE: [sv-ec] Fw: Clarification of Entity-based participating/voting rules.

There are at least two reasons for requiring entity-based voting:

1. Money. By requiring it, SA collects an extra $800 per
     entity. Extra money, without a dues increase.

2. Influence of the company. A company can not control individual
     engineers in a WG, but it can refuse to permit entity
     participation of engineers who might make WG decisions
     not favoring the tight-knit circle of entities involved.

     SA has mechanisms to control unethical behavior, but without
     the entity factor, there is no way to control misguided or
     just plain honest behavior not favoring the various
     entities' interests. Especially, it eliminates influence
     of retired or currently unemployed engineers or SA members.

     In my opinion, this tends to lower the quality of Stds, because
     noone not busily employed could dedicate attention to them.
     Only degraded, multitasked effort would be available.

Can anyone think of a different reason for it?

On 04/07/2010 05:37 PM, Steven Sharp wrote:
> In my opinion, using entity-based voting on a standard where the issues
> are engineering-related rather than business-related was always a bad idea.
> It still worked because the real work was done in subcommittees by individual
> engineers, and the approval by entities was largely a formality.
>
> If the subcommittees go to entity-based voting, they will not work as well.
> If the IEEE rules require this for committees that use entity-based voting,
> then the correct answer is to stop using entity-based voting for this
> standard. Of course, somebody will lose face over the foolish award that
> was given for the "efficiency improvement" of using entity-based voting in
> the first place.
>
> If this goes forward, it may still work because the votes in the subcommittees
> were usually formalities as well. There was generally an attempt to reach
> consensus before voting. Only a few issues were actually settled by voting.
> As long as individual engineers are still able to attend and provide input,
> and there is still an attempt to reach consensus of all attendees, regardless
> of whether they can vote, things may not change too much.
>
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
>
>

-- 
         John Michael Williams
         jwill@BasicISP.net
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.