RE: +++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE LETTER BALLOT
Vote -- No
While I am in favor of the concept, the ballot text has unintended
consequences of significance. The attachment includes all of my comments
indicated with red edits and change bars on the ballot text. The comments
are detailed below.
1. I have problems with the terms "draft standard" and "non-draft standard"
and their definitions. As defined, the proposed changes will be counter
productive because of the definition of "draft standard". I think "draft
standard" and "letter ballot" are so similar that the new term is
unnecessary. I would rewrite all the text per this proposed new 5.1.4.2
paragraph.
"Technical issues are voted by letter ballot, or technical motion. A letter
ballot is required for specific Working Group actions. Other issues may
also be
decided by a letter ballot at the discretion of the Working Group Chair.
Technical motions may be decided by vote at a properly constituted Working
Group meeting, or between meetings via electronic or paper ballots."
2. 5.1.4.2.1 -- Deleting the quorum text breaks another part of the rules.
The paragraph is referenced by 3.6.1., 2.a) on proposing rules changes. An
appropriate update to the reference ("Voting on Technical Issues") would
allow a rules change to be proposed without a meeting, consistent with
conducting other Working Group business electronically (e.g., as a
"technical motion").
3. 5.1.4.2.1 -- Per comment 1: Change the title to "Voting by Letter
Ballot". I would strike the first new sentence and change the subject of
the second sentence to "letter ballot vote". Change "Working Group chairs
may vote on draft standards." to be on letter ballots. Delete the added "on
a draft standard" at the top of the second page.
4. 5.1.4.2.1 -- Requiring all "draft standard" issues to be decided by
letter ballot is a bad idea (as pointed out by Pat). My reading of
definitions similarly includes many things done in Working Group meetings
(e.g., accepting comment resolutions, approving generation of a new draft,
authorizing a WG ballot). Voting on "draft standards" must clearly separate
those items requiring a letter ballot and business that can properly be
conducted at a properly constituted Working Group meeting (e.g., my comment
1).
5. 5.1.4.2.2 -- Per comment 1: Replace all occurances of "non-draft
standard technical issues" with "technical motions".
6. 5.1.4.2.2 -- The first stricken paragraph of the old 5.1.4.2.2 included
one option for Working Group chairs to declare an item at a meeting the
subject of a letter ballot. The new text only allows chair's discretion for
items between meetings. My proposed text in comment 1 would revert to the
status quo. We also have no established procedures for electronic motions,
and Robert's Rules don't apply too well to a reflector. I give discretion
to the WG chair, naturally, the operation rules of a WG could constrain that
discretion if felt necessary by the WG membership. I would recommend
clarifying the first paragraph to read:
"Votes on technical motions can be conducted at meetings held in conjunction
with an 802 Plenary, at interim Working Group meetings or in between
meetings.
Consideration and vote of a technical motion between meetings is at the
discretion
of the Working Group Chair. Under any of these conditions a vote is carried
by a
75% approval of the sum of those members voting "Approve" and "Do Not
Approve"."
7. 5.1.4.2.2 -- Per Bob Love's comment and my comment 1, change the 2nd
para., second sentence to read:
"A quorum is required to vote on a technical motion at interim Working Group
meetings or in between meetings."
8. 5.1.4.2.2 -- Per comment 1: The last sentence of the 3rd para. can be
deleted.
RMG Rules Ballot.pdf