Tony,
Thanks for the clarification, it helps a
lot. I agree that Paul’s plan requires a P&P change (though I
don’t think Paul has stated that as such yet). I agree that we have
a back log of desired P&P changes. Actually, this one was on the list
I presented to the EC last meeting in somewhat broader scope:
“Suspend
SEC voting privledges if certain core responsibilities not performed
Progress
reports, Input for project plan etc., failing to respond to ballots”
Of course, this was a matter to be brought
to debate and would only be balloted if people felt it was worth considering. Also,
don’t think we as a group have tried to prioritize the rules issues I’ve
identified to date. We really should do that. I also agree that we
have failed to follow our own rules for putting a rules change to “further
study”. On the other hand, I’m not sure exactly what assignment
to further study accomplishes anyway. We would have to initiate a new
rules ballot to bring it out of study, and we can always study it
informally. Oh well. Not sure where this is going. Guess it’s
just another aside.
Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE
802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs -
Shannon Laboratory
Room B255,
Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ
07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973)
236-6925
Fax: +1 (973)
360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree
[mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:21
AM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com;
gthompso@nortelnetworks.com; p.nikolich@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] EC email
vote statistics
At 09:09 01/08/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com
wrote:
Tony,
I don t think I understand you comment about the list of pending rules
changes. Can you elaborate more?
Mat -
Paul's proposal can only be put into effect by making a change to the current
P&P.
My point is simple; you already have (as you pointed out in the last SEC
meeting) a growing list of things that need to be changed in the P&P,
including one major item (the much-needed changes that will establish a set of
WG membership rules that actually mean anything, and that fix the initial
membership issue in an acceptable way) that we have so far failed to resolve. I
will personally not support any additions to the list of things that we need to
fix in the rules, especially items like this one that I don't believe are
needed anyway, until we have "cleaned up our act" by fixing the
problems with the rules that we already know about but have so far failed to
fix.
An aside:
I was about to say that there is one exception to my statement above;
that I would support a new rules change initiative to fix the amazingly broken
way we decide whether a rules change passes, fails, or is assigned for further
study. When we took the vote that failed to approve the membership rules change
last Friday, Paul stated that 2/3 approval was required to pass, less than 1/3
approval would fail, and between 1/3 and 2/3 approval would cause the item to
be assigned for further study. However, on looking at what the current P&P
state, it would seem that we didn't follow our stated rules, which actually
seem to be in good shape on this point. In 3.6.5 of the P&P it states that
LMSC approval of a rules change requires a 2/3 majority, and that (and I quote
the entire last para of 3.6.5): "If LMSC approval is not achieved, a vote to assign
the proposal for further study and recommendation shall be taken. Assignment
shall require the affirmative vote of at least one third of all voting members
of the Executive Committee, otherwise no further action is taken on the proposal."
We haven't followed this last requirement; the vote to approve that rules
change failed, and we have not yet taken the required subsequent vote on
whether or not to assign the proposal for further study.
End of aside.
In the meantime, as I have said already, there are
other actions that we can take regarding Paul's issue, such as the web-based
summary idea, that don't involve a change of P&P and may well result in an
improvement in our collective behaviour that would obviate our need to fix the
problem by a rules change.
Regards,
Tony