Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group Motion
Pat,
I don't recall the incident you described. I may not have been involved
at this level at the time. I agree that those external to the debate
might interpret and react to the situation as you describe. However,
you also describe a perfectly good method (tabling) to deal with this
without requiring the personal prerogative for the WG chair.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:37 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
Bob,
The provision didn't get added to the P&P lightly. There has been at
least one case in the past where a WG chair clearly voiced that the
amendment made to a PAR would be objectional to the WG and the PAR was
approved anyway. It happened quite a few years ago. At a later meeting a
PAR modification was done that resolved the issue so one might argue
there was no harm done in the end but there was a lot of heat created
that could have been avoided. The chair and the WG would have preferred
to not have the PAR sent forward that way at all.
If we don't have that rule, the WG chair could try a motion to table
(postpone to an undefined time). The political/PR considerations of
voting down a PAR that is close but needs tweaking are undesireable.
Those external to the decision usually see such a vote as a vote against
the concept in total. That it is a vote against the specific details of
the motion rather than against the work going forward is a message that
gets lost.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
Sent: Friday, 18 February, 2005 2:38 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
Pat,
The problem I have with the existing and proposed text is that it is
unbounded. It applies to all motions brought by the WG chair on behalf
of the WG. I might be inclined to support a change that did not include
deleting the entire section, if the change enumerated a specific, short
list of topics for which motions could be withdrawn by the WG chair
after discussion had begun.
PARs I can see on this list, though I would prefer that the EC simply
disapprove the motion, if it is inclined to make changes that might be
objectionable to the WG. I think an even better solution is for the WG
chair to speak up and make it known that they think the EC is changing a
WG's motion in such a way that the WG did not consider, would find
objectionable, or should be able to review. The EC should then be
easily convinced that the motion should be defeated. The WG chair then
has the opportunity to take the EC positions back to the WG for further
action.
I just don't see the EC passing an amended motion over the objection of
the WG chair that brought the original motion. Do we really need this
type of personal prerogative?
I was not arguing that our current P&P give us the right to change
procedure. As it is currently constructed, it clearly does give us that
right. I was arguing that it is the wrong thing to do and that it
causes more problems than it solves. It also opens up all sorts of
issues that would be out of bounds if RROR had precedence over our P&P
on procedural matters and parliamentary procedure.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:13 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
Bob,
I am fully aware of what RROR says on withdrawing a motion. The
suggested text gives the Working Group Chair a right for a certain class
of motion that goes beyond what is in Robert's Rules.
Our P&P clause 1 has Robert's Rules below the LMSC P&P in precedence and
clause 13 says:
"On questions of parlimentary procedure not covered in these Procedures,
Robert's Rules of Order (revised) may be used to expedite due process."
Both of these indicate that we can have a rule that overrides the usual
RROR procedure.
Experience, especially on the matter of PAR approval has led some of us
to feel that this measure is necessary for us. There isn't much point in
giving a Working Group a project so altered that it doesn't wish to
pursue it. I think that approval of an external communication (liaison
statement, regulatory letter, etc.) might raise the same problem (maybe
even more so as one can modify a PAR later but one can't unring the
bell).
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
Sent: Friday, 18 February, 2005 1:36 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
Pat,
Sounds like there was some interesting discussion on the call!
I think that we have to make a more general decision here, before we can
craft some text. Is a motion, once made and seconded, the property of
the mover? Robert's Rules say no. Once a motion is made and seconded,
the motion belongs to the body. If a motion to amend is made and
adopted that changes the original motion to one the mover of that
original motion finds objectionable, the mover no longer has the right
to remove the motion from consideration.
The only way to change a motion brought to the EC on behalf of a WG is
through a valid amendment. Once the motion is amended, the WG chair has
no right to withdraw it. All the WG chair can do is argue against the
amended motion, if it is now changed in such a way that the chair
believes the WG would no longer support it.
This is the same right all EC members have with respect to motions they
find undesirable. Should the mover of any motion that is modified to
become undesirable to them have the right to remove the modified motion
from consideration? I think not. Does it matter how a motion came to
be made on the floor of an EC meeting? I think not.
This is the trouble that comes up when we cast aside well known, tested
methods for conducting meetings, as we have with RROR.
I would say that the correct revision to the P&P would be to delete the
section, in its entirety.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:13 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
At the P&P ballot resolution meeting, we found that the text in 7.1.5.1
item 8 regarding deferral of action on a Working Group's motion is
ambiguous. We felt we needed a wider discussion on what the text should
mean before we could write acceptable text. Since this is rather long, I
will put the text for my suggested resolution in second message so
responders can focus on that.
7.1.5.1 item 8 in our current P&P
If the Executive Committee so modifies a Working Group's motion that the
Working Group Chair believes the Working Group membership may no longer
support the revised motion then the Working Group should be given the
opportunity to reconsider what action it wishes to take and present it
to the Executive Committee at the next Executive Committee meeting. This
action can be accomplished by a Privileged Non-debatable "Request To
Defer Action" made by the affected Working Group Chair which will
automatically cause all action on the motion to be deferred until the
end of the next regular Executive Committee meeting.
THE AMBIGUITY:
Some of the text (e.g. "Privileged Non-debatable "Request") seems to
imply that this is describing a motion made by the Working Group Chair
which needs an affirmative vote by the EC to take effect.
Some of the text (e.g. "the Working Group should be given the
opportunity to reconsider..." and "will automaticallly cause all action
on the motion to be deferred") seems to imply that this is describing a
unilateral action that the Working Group Chair can make to withdraw the
motion.
In the former case, this is describing a motion to postpone (i.e. a
motion to table) by the Working Group Chair and a special rule isn't
required. (A motion to postpone isn't privileged but the use of
privileged here is incorrect; see below.) One could have a bit of
informative text suggesting a motion to postpone but that seems entirely
unnecessary to me.
In the latter case, the text should make the unilateral nature of the
action clear. It was also pointed out that there is no definition of a
"working group's motion". The text for this will be in the other email.
Background: A couple of us on the call believe that the latter is what
was intended when the text was originally written. A specific concern
that caused the text to be written was amendment of a PAR by the
Executive Committee. We wanted to give the chair the ability to take the
PAR back to the Working Group for action if the PAR was altered to the
point that the Working Group chair was concerned that the Working Group
might not be willing to pursue the work.
The use of "Privileged" here is incorrect in any case. In parlimentary
procedure, a "privileged" only applies to motions that don't relate to
the motion currently being cosidered but take precedence over it despite
that. A motion about the current motion is therefore never a privileged
motion - it doesn't need privilege.
P.S. This text is not relevant to the topic of 7.1.5.1 which is
generally about limiting the length of EC meetings. It should be moved
someplace else - perhaps with the voting rules.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.