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

[802SEC] +++ P&P Revision Ballot - Clause 17 - Procedure for PARs - tentative tally



Tentative tally:

   Vote categories:        DIS    DNV     APP    ABS
   -------------------------------------------------
   01 Mat Sherman          DIS
   02 Pat Thaler                  DNV
   03 Buzz Rigsbee                	  APP
   04 Bob O'Hara           DIS (Will change based on Geoff's words)
   05 John Hawkins                DNV
   06 Tony Jeffree                        APP
   07 Bob Grow             DIS (Will change based on Geoff's words)
   08 Stuart Kerry                DNV
   09 Bob Heile                   DNV
   10 Roger Marks                 DNV
   11 Mike Takefman               DNV	  APP
   12 Mike Lynch           DIS (Will change based on Geoff's words)
   13 Steve Shellhammer           DNV
   14 Jerry Upton                 DNV
   15 Ajay Rajkumar               DNV
   16 Carl Stevenson              	  APP
   17 Paul Nikolich         		  APP
                           ---++++---+++++---++++---
   TOTALS                  DIS    DNV     APP    ABS
   -16-             total: -04-   -09-    -05-   -00-

Geoff's proposed wording is:

"3. LMSC projects are balloted by individuals.  An LMSC PAR specifying a 
balloting method other than balloting by individuals may be submitted to 
NesCom only when approved by the EC in a separate vote taken in session at 
an 802 plenary to approve the exceptional balloting method."


Present situation is that all "DIS" would change to "APP based on Geoff's 
wording, with the exception of Mat, who has made this comment:

"I will change my vote to approve if the following text is removed:

'unless approved in advance by a specific vote of the EC taken in
session at an 802 plenary'."

So, what Mat proposes is that the text should simply read:

"3. LMSC projects are balloted by individuals.  No LMSC PAR may be 
submitted to NesCom specifying any other method of sponsor balloting."

His rationale is that, as the SA has no model P&P for running both 
individual and entity balloting, we could not operate an entity ballot 
within our current P&P, and therefore the question of whether or not the EC 
might vote to approve one is moot.

I would like feedback on this - whether (a) Geoff's wording, or (b) Mat's 
simplified wording, will be more acceptable.

Regards,
Tony

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

P&P clause 17 revision.doc