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...
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.
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.
|