Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] ********************* Status of comment resolution on P&P Revis...



Jerry,

 

Right now only two people seem to be objecting, so it doesn’t seem to be warranted to break this out separately.  I will double check for opposition at the opening plenary session and adjust plans accordingly.  I will note that in my mind, anyone can make a motion to divide on the motion to approve a P&P change if they wish to vote text separately.  So if it is an issue for you, feel free to introduce a motion and I will certainly accommodate it.  Since I’m trying to minimize the process to get these issues addressed, I only plan to do this if I see a P&P ballot will fail unless I do divide a question and deal with it separately.  If the P&P revision will pass as is, then both of the subtexts should pass independently as well – so I see little point in dividing the question and further complicating the process.  However, if it is really critical to someone to vote the issues separately, then they are welcome to bring a motion to divide forward.

 

We can talk more Monday if you like.

 

Mat

 

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com


From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:25 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] ********************* Status of comment resolution on P&P Revis...

 

Matt,

Given the closeness of the vote we took in November on Member Emeriti, I again suggest that you break that out as as a separate ballot.

Regards,

Jerry Upton

 

In a message dated 3/11/2005 1:02:00 AM Central Standard Time, matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM writes:

All,

I’m trying to provide cleaner versions of the current resolution on each of the P&P revision ballots currently in progress.  Attached please find a ‘clean’ version of the current resolution on the EC Membership and Meetings ballot.  By clean I mean it is a single set of changes applied to the current P&P.  Prior versions consisted of layered change sets that were getting difficult to follow.  It also includes editorials suggested by myself and others but essentially is the same text as before.

I took 2 straw polls on breaking out the Member Emeriti and EC telecon issues.  Two people objected to Member Emeriti, and four people objected to Telecoms.   I will straw poll the ballot as a whole on Monday but currently opposition to Telecoms is enough that I will probably break that out as a separate ballot.

Please let me know if you have any comments.

Thanks,

Mat

<<802.0-EC_Membership_&_Meetings-Proposed_ballot_resolution_r4_050310.doc>>

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.

Senior Member Technical Staff

BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR

Office: +1 973.633.6344

email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com

---------- 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.