Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ BallotonWG electronic voting
Bill -
The reason I feel that it doesn't really improve on the existing wording is
that the difference hinges on the interpretation of "apparent" and
"simple", which could perfectly reasonably be interpreted by the Chair as
meaning that no procedural motions are ever needed. Hence, it doesn't
actually say anything more than the existing words - both wordings boil
down to the principle of the Chair using his/her judgment to decide
procedural matters. Hence, if I had my Editor's hat on, I would probably
retain the existing words & add the extra para as a purely illustrative note.
Regards,
Tony
At 15:10 10/06/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>Tony,
>
>I would be delighted to with the wording of your first paragraph. I
>think it is an improvement over the current text as it suggests the
>greater richness of options that in fact exist and are practiced by a
>wise chair.
>
>wlq
>
>Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> > Bill -
> >
> > My point was that it is difficult to be usefully more specific than the
> > existing text without running into the problem of deciding when you're
> > done. I would personally be happy with my first para, but then it isn't
> > clear to me that it is really much of an improvement on the existing
> > wording, as it is simply an expansion of what the existing wording
> > allows/implies.
> >
> > Actually, there is a major difference between my wording and yours - mine,
> > like the existing text, keeps the possibility that the Chair can decide a
> > procedural issue without a motion. As Howard pointed out a while back in
> > this thread, there are (hopefully infrequent) occasions when that kind of
> > silver bullet might be necessary.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > At 14:14 10/06/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > >Tony,
> > >
> > >While I may be a fool, it seems to me that the text of your first
> > >paragraph, excluding the the first 5 words ("I believe that in
> > >practice"), is essentially equivalent to what I suggest in my last
> > >paragraph and the use of either would eliminate my problem with the
> > >current text of the section. A more detailed description is neither
> > >needed nor desirable.
> > >
> > >wlq
> > >
> > >Tony Jeffree wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bill -
> > > >
> > > > I believe that in practice, WG chairs make rulings as to what is to be
> > > > treated as a procedural motion, and what is to be treated as a
> technical
> > > > motion, and (where it is apparent that there is a simple procedural
> > > > decision to be made, that doesn't need a motion) may also decide
> make other
> > > > procedural decisions without the need for a motion.
> > > >
> > > > Also, in practice, a wise chair has a pretty clear idea of where the
> > > > borderline needs to be; otherwise he/she rapidly ceases to be chair
> (wise
> > > > or otherwise - pun intended).
> > > >
> > > > Attempting to capture that set of ideas, in an unambiguous way, in
> a way
> > > > that we all agree to, and in less words than the works of
> Shakespeare, is
> > > > likely to be a non-terminating process; I am therefore pretty confident
> > > > that the existing words in that area of the rules will remain
> unscathed at
> > > > least as long as it takes for us all to lose interest in the problem.
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a clear case where the old proverb regarding the
> difference
> > > > in the relevance of rules to fools & wise men seems to apply.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > > At 12:18 10/06/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Howard,
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks for the response. As a WG Chair, such an interpretation is
> quite
> > > > >reasonable and needed for running the WG.
> > > > >
> > > > >However, I was approaching the issue from the point of view of a
> proposed
> > > > >rules change and I am trying to understand what the current and
> proposed
> > > > >rules explicitly state and what they appear to me to imply.
> > > > >
> > > > >The text of section 5.1.4.1 implies to me that issues that come
> before a
> > > > >WG are of only two types, procedural and technical. Hence, if an
> issue
> > > > >is not technical, it is procedural. Since for example motions to
> > > > >adjourn and motions to table are not technical, they must be
> procedural.
> > > > > According to the text of section 5.1.4.1, the chair decides
> procedural
> > > > >issues and can therefore decide motions to adjourn and motions to
> table.
> > > > > I don't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > >Now I agree that the Chair must make some procedural
> decisions. This is
> > > > >clear from Robert's Rules of Order.
> > > > >
> > > > >I think the problem is that the text of section 5.1.4.1 is too
> > > > >simplistic. What I believe the section should be saying is something
> > > > >more like that the Chair decides procedural issues, which includes
> > > > >deciding whether a motion is procedural or technical, and that motions
> > > > >are approved or rejected by vote of the WG.
> > > > >
> > > > >Your comments?
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > >wlq
> > > > >
> > > > >Howard Frazier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My interpretation of this rule is that the WG chair is empowered to
> > > decide
> > > > > > procedural issues. In practice, the WG chair usually puts such
> > > matters to
> > > > > > a vote, after declaring them to be procedural.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A good chair refrains from exercising his or her authority to the
> > > > > limit. You
> > > > > > save your silver bullets for the day when the werewolf is on the
> > > loose and
> > > > > > hungry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Howard
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >In section 5.1.4.1 of the LMSC Rules, which is part of the text of
> > > this
> > > > > > >proposed rules change, there is a statement that "The Chair of the
> > > > > > >Working Group decides procedural issues". Is this correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I was under the impression that the Chair decided whether a
> motion was
> > > > > > >procedural or technical, but that the Working Group decided both
> > > > > > >technical and procedural issues by vote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Am I misinformed or is this text wrong?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >wlq
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Dear SEC members,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change letter
> > > > > ballot on WG
> > > > > > >>Electronic Voting. (Note this is a resend of the March 17, 2002
> > > letter
> > > > > > >>ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because we
> > > did not
> > > > > > >>officially approve it for distribution until last
> night. Other than
> > > > > that it
> > > > > > >>is unchanged).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the working group
> > > level.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>The ballot opens April 1, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12
> > > midnight EDT
> > > > > > >>(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a
> > > DISAPPROVE
> > > > > > >>vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide email
> > > list as
> > > > > > >>well. WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite
> > > your WG
> > > > > > >>members to comment through you.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Regards,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>--Paul Nikolich
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
> > > > > > >>email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> > > > > > >>cell: 857.205.0050
> > > > > > >>mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >> Name:
> > > > > MAR2002 rules change on wg electronic balloting.pdf
> > > > > > >> MAR2002 rules change on wg electronic
> balloting.pdf Type: Adobe
> > > > > Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> > > > > > >> Encoding:
> > > base64
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tony
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
Regards,
Tony