RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.
Geoff,
I am cautious about a rule that would allow a minority to force a
roll call vote. I need to think carefully about this during the P&P
change ballot, because I see tremendous potential for abuse.
I don't know how long a roll-call vote would take in a large group,
but I wouldn't be surprised if it took 30-60 minutes. In that case, a
relatively small minority could bring the entire process to a
complete standstill. A few roll-call votes would prevent any other
issue from coming to the floor during, for instance, a closing
plenary.
I'm glad you recognize that the impact of a roll call does depend on
whether the WG limits normal voting to members only. In 802.16, we
use voting tokens and so have a good control of who may vote. Perhaps
that's one reason why, to my recollection, I've never heard a request
for a roll call in 802.16.
If a WG doesn't use voting tokens or otherwise control who votes,
then the proposed rule becomes potentially even more onerous because,
in that case, you might need a first roll call vote to determine
whether the 20% threshold to have a roll call vote was reached; only
then could you carry out the roll call vote that was requested.
I won't be sad if I find that a WG chair refuses a roll call. This is
a judgement call that the chair, who is in a better position to know
the full facts, has to make. I am beginning to worry that we'll all
be sad if this rule comes into effect and begins to bog down our
progress. It will take some strong arguments in favor of the P&P
change to get my vote.
Roger
>Bob-
>
>I agree that any chair may require a roll call vote whenever they
>feel it is appropriate.
>I believe that the issue that was put before us is when one or more
>members of the voting body feel it is appropriate and the chair does
>not.
>
>It makes me sad that a chair would refuse such a request.
>I understand that my particular view of this might not be
>appropriate in some groups where who may vote is controlled more
>carefully than in others.
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 11:30 AM 11/17/2003 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>
>>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