| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi Folks,
I have heard it suggested to me that a valid course of action is to leave the current rules on this matter in the state of being “ambiguous or doubtful” and let each chair interpret it for his/her self. I do not believe this is a valid course of action, and felt I should review the background of this motion. Most of this is taken from the first e-mail I sent on this topic.
To quote from Article IX of Robert’s Rules (10th edition):
“If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with other bylaws. The interpretations should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable.”
I am of the opinion that our “bylaws” (the LMSC P&P) are in fact “ambiguous or doubtful” regarding the process of obtaining membership at the start up of a working group. In particular we have from section 5.1.3.1 titled “Establishment”:
“All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working Group become members of the Working Group.”
On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled “Retention”:
“Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary meetings.”
As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis) in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with one another. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not we intended “meeting” or “session” in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these two rules seem to conflict with one another. Even taking the liberal view that meeting means session, after the first session the general rules would kick in and all “members” would seem to lose their membership in the WG once the initial meeting was completed.
All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should “fix” this problem by the end of the July meeting. My concern is for the beginning of the July meeting. Given what happened in March to 802.20, I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these “bylaws” so that we don’t have a repeat of the last meeting. As indicated by Robert’s Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority vote. More importantly it “MUST” be interpreted one the problem is identified. If possible, it should be interpreted to be “in harmony” with other bylaws and “in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined”. The point here is that it may not be possible to interpret a rule in harmony with the other rules, or determine the exact intent 802 had when they adopted these rules. However, we still MUST interpret the rules, and then amend them as soon as possible. Leaving it ambiguous for each Chair to interpret independently given that we know a problem exist is not permissible by my reading of Robert’s Rules.
Hopefully this was helpful.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman -----Original Message-----
Dear SEC,
----- Original Message ----- Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation
Paul,
I wish to formally make a motion concerning the interpretation of the current initial membership rules. The motion I would like to make is as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Motion that until the P&P
revision titled "WG membership" being balloted starting March 27th,
2003 is completed (estimated to occur at the end of the July 2003 IEEE 802
Plenary meeting) the line in the LMSC P&P section 5.1.3.2 titled
"Retention" reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson helped develop this motion, and has agreed to second it. Note that based on recent discussions it is somewhat different than the motion I said I would first make on the reflector. This motion maximally protects the voting rights of initial members by ensuring retention of their rights through the first 4 plenary sessions. We believe this is the motion that has the greatest chance of success. If this fails, we may want make a second motion which we would want to complete before the end of the upcoming wireless interim session. Since the motion is reasonably concise we would prefer a 15 day ballot period for this interpretation to allow time for a second round if needed.
Regards,
Mat Matthew Sherman
|