Re: Appeal of the recent DASC election process by Alex Zamfirescu

Hi Ron:

It looks to me that we add here a new "egg and chicken" problem.

It seems that an Appeals Committee was somehow nominated by a
DASC chair who was not yet confirmed by the Standards Association,
and that the Appeal Committee empowers the unconfirmed officers of the
DASC which were elected under an election which is challenged.

If the Appeals Committee was appointed by other mean, or any other higher
authority, I would appreciate to know it.

Here is IMHO the simplest way to solve all this:

1. First, a "fast track" Appeals Committee accepts immediately that the
elections *were flawed*, and that Alex has all reasons to believe that had
he had a chance to present his platform (position statement) in a unified
official ballot, and without any other intimidation, he would have had
good chances to be
re-elected. An official statement (report) is immediately published in that
regard.
Alex is *given the right to publish a white paper* about his view of the
status of the
DASC and his view of its bright future, without any intimidation (like
adding {SPAM?} to the subject of messages). Such white paper should be
publicised
over the DASC reflector and it should become an official DASC document by
circulation as attachment to DASC minutes in its entirety. Alex will comply
with what can be legally discussed under IEEE DASC, and will retain the
copyright of the material. No other restrictions are imposed on Alex to
comply with this condition.

2. Recognizing the good faith, and to avoid unreasonable complications
Alex will withdraw his request to repeat elections, after conditions stated
under
point 1 above are all met.
3. This reasonable proposition is valid until the end of this week, February
16, 2008. It is null unless accepted in its entirety before the end of the
week

Alternatively, if we take the formal path, I will challenge the "egg and
chicken"
situation, which is, IMHO, *fixable only by the appointment of temporary
officers*
first (which could be Victor and Stan or others).

In conclusion, if the (ad-hoc) Appealing Committee was appointed by
the DASC elected chair it looks at least odd that it has to empower the
officers.
IMHO, *the officers are official when they are endorsed (approved) by the *
*Standards Association, and no other authority, position or agreement with *
*a position could overwrite that P&P rule. Under similar rules an election
is valid*
*when the Standards Association says it's so, never before.*
**
Second, until the end of this week an open proposal including a
non negotiable condition could be used  to settle the debate
without further delay.

I look forward to reading your reply.

Enjoy the Valentine's Day!

Alex Zamfirescu


On 2/13/08, Ron Waxman <r.waxman@computer.org> wrote:
>
>  To members of the DASC
>
> With respect to Michael McNamara's question, below:
>
>
>
> The Appeals Committee agrees with the following position:
>
> Until the appeal is resolved, one cannot judge its merit or the required
> remedies.  Therefore for the time being, the results of the election are
> valid.
>
> To do otherwise would constitute activity based on speculations about
> future events.
>
>
>
> The process is underway, and the letter to Alex will be sent by tomorrow.
> The business of DASC will continue to be transacted with the officers in
> place as of the election.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Waxman
>
> Chair of the DASC Appeals Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael (Mac) McNamara [mailto:mcnamara@cadence.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> *To:* r.waxman@computer.org; stds-dasc@eda.org
> *Subject:* RE: Appeal of the recent DASC election process by Alex
> Zamfirescu
>
>
>
> Are the effects of the recent election suspended until such time as the
> appeal process is concluded, or are they to continue to be implemented as if
> there was no appeal, with the eventual outcome of the appeal possibly
> changing the effects of this election?
>
>
>
> The IEEE SA Operations Manual (http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om-sect4.html#4.4)
> is <http://standards.ieee.org/sa/sa-om-sect4.html#4.4)+is> silent on this
> matter, and moreover indeed details quite a number of serial 20 day and 45
> day response periods, which could well sum up to a half year or more.
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-stds-dasc@eda.org [mailto:owner-stds-dasc@eda.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ron Waxman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:33 PM
> *To:* stds-dasc@eda.org
> *Subject:* Appeal of the recent DASC election process by Alex Zamfirescu
>
> To members of the DASC
>
>
>
> Alex Zamfirescu has appealed the procedures that were used in the recent
> DASC Officer elections.  In conformance with the IEEE SA Operations Manual,
> Section 4.4, which details the procedure for handling appeals, the DASC
> has formed an appeals committee to process Alex's appeal.  The committee is
> composed of Gabe Moretti, Steve Bailey, Karen Bartleson, and Ron Waxman
> (Chair of the committee).  The process is lengthy, providing for the Appeals
> Committee to formally notify Alex of the actions he must take to detail the
> appeal ( letter to be sent to Alex this week), the time for Alex to prepare
> his formal appeal, time for review of Alex's formal response by the
> committee, time for discussion by the committee and Alex, and finally time
> for the determination of what action, if any, should be taken.  The
> procedure also allows for the appeal to be withdrawn at any time by Alex,
> which will lead to an informal resolution; and for a right of appeal
> (escalation) by Alex, should he not be satisfied by the result.  This
> activity will *not* be conducted on the DASC reflector, so you will hear
> the results within the next 2 to 3 months.  In the mean time, you will be
> informed as we enter each phase of the process.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Waxman
>
> Chair of the DASC Appeals Committee
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>



-- 
Alex Zamfirescu
650-814-7514
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com
=========
This communication, and its attachments, may contain
privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or
shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying or  distribution of this communication, or
the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Interception of e-mail is a crime under the  Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply
e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
=========

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.