RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.

["Bob O'Hara" <bob@airespace.com>]

Title: Message

Buzz,

 

Oops, I missed your last question.  Of course there is a way to require this (or any action) by a chair.  We legislate it.  However while we disagree on the degree to which Robert's Rules are useful in 802, I do agree with Geoff that the chair must have wide latitude to run his/her meeting.  If a member is unhappy with the handling they are receiving from a chair on a particular issue, they can always appeal to the EC for relief or attempt to have the chair removed in the working group.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:13 PM
To: Bob O'Hara; Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.

Bob,  You're right on that, but I think the issue is:  When and how can the voting members request a roll-call vote ??? 

 

I was under the impression that anyone voting could make such a request but what happens if the Chair person does not agree to it ??? 

 

Is there a way to require such an action and how ??? 

 

 

Thanx,  Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA  98124-2207
(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:31 AM
To: Paul Nikolich; IEEE802
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.

I agree with Paul on this matter.  However since our P&P allow a chair to decide all procedural matters, any chair may ask for a roll call vote at any time they feel it is appropriate.

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:25 AM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.

Dear EC members,

 

The motion to operate under the pending rules change on Roll Call Votes  was 7 approve, 5 disapprove, 1 abstain.

 

The LMSC bylaws require a least a 2/3 majority of all EC members to approve a rules change for submission to ballot and for adoption.  The EC has 13 members with voting rights.  Greater than 2/3 of the EC members is at least 9.  In my haste to conclude the meeting, I didn't apply this rationale, but upon reflection, it is my judgement that motions regarding the adoption of a rule (regardless if they are permanent or temporary) must require at least 2/3 majority.  Therefore, the motion to operate under the pending rules change on roll call votes did not pass as it did not achieve at least a 2/3 majority.

 

Regards,

 

--Paul Nikolich

Chairman, LMSC