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

Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion



Pat, et al,

I believe that Pat is correct as t the current P&P - and that our P&P
requirements for P&P changes are appropriate.

I think that the standard for sending a proposed P&P change out for an EC
ballot (which is really just socializing it and gathering comments and
changes, in effect) should have a lower bar [pass criteria is Y/(Y+N)] so as
to allow things to get hashed out.

However, actually MAKING a change to the P&P should be held to a higher
standard pase criteria 2/3 = Y/(total number of EC members with voting 
rights) even if they don't vote or even aren't present, due the fact that
actually changing the P&P has more impact than simply discussing a change
and trying to work towards a consensus.

Carl


> -----Original Message-----
> From: STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On 
> Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:17 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I don't see the text you quote in our current P&P. Are you 
> quoting from the version in effect at the time of the rules 
> change. (I recall that we have had a rules change on the 
> rules change section so this change may not have been done 
> under the current P&P.)
> 
> In the current P&P, I see two meeting votes on a rules change:
> One to send it out for ballot requiring "the affirmative vote 
> of at least two-thirds of Committee members with voting 
> rights who vote to approve or disapprove". That is clear even 
> if wordy - pass criteria is Y/(Y+N).
> 
> One for final approval of the change which requires "the 
> affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members 
> with voting rights (regardless of whether they are present)." 
> That is clearly Y/(total number of EC members with voting 
> rights) even if they don't vote or even aren't present.
> 
> Pat
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:41 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 
> It sounds like the idea of the motion is not the correct 
> procedure so I will not bring such a motion to the EC.  Guess 
> we will stick with Paul's interpretation.
> 
> In terms of the original motion to make the rules change the 
> 802 P&P states
> 
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies 
> and Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of 
> at least two thirds of all voting Executive Committee members 
> with voting rights."
> 
> The motion passed based on having at least two thirds 
> affirmative of "voting EC members with voting rights."  I 
> assume that "voting EC members" means those EC members that 
> voted.  By the way, who writes this stuff?  :)
> 
> 	I think adding a definitions section to the rules and 
> clarifying these ambiguous rules is worth doing.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:27 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 
> From a parliamentary procedure point of view, I would have to 
> agree with Roger that having a motion have the same effect as 
> our Policies and Procedures is not the correct thing to do.  
> If the point of the new procedure was supposed to be that all 
> work, including that already established before the adoption 
> of the new procedure, was to be affected by the new 
> procedure, the new procedure should have stated that.  Since 
> it didn't include such language and specifically describes 
> the use of the five criteria document as part of the 
> procedure, it clearly exempts those projects that existed 
> prior to the adoption of the new procedure from the needing 
> to implement that procedure.
> 
> Regarding Roger's question as to whether the motion 
> establishing this procedure actually passed, I can't be 
> certain.  According to the current P&P, 2/3 of all EC members 
> with voting rights must approve a P&P change.
> By this measure, the motion did not pass, achieving only 8/15 
> approval.
> However, I don't know if the language of this clause 
> (7.1.5.4) has changed since the November 2004 session.
> 
>  -Bob
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:25 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I would be opposed to this motion on coexistence assurance, 
> for the following reasons:
> 
> (1) The proposed motion seeks to, in effect, impose a new rule on WGs.
> Our rules are defined not by motion of the EC but by the P&P. 
> If someone wants to impose a new rule, they ought to be 
> proposing a P&P change, not a motion. If an approved motion 
> has the status of a rule, then our process is broken.
> 
> (2) The proposed motion (if approved and enforced) would be 
> adding a completely new rule, not interpreting an existing 
> rule. The existing P&P
> says:
> 
> *21 [Procedure for Coexistence Assurance] "If indicated in 
> the five criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a 
> coexistence assurance (CA) document in the process of 
> preparing for working group letter ballot and Sponsor ballot."
> 
> The projects subject to this motion do NOT indicate in their 
> Five Criteria that a CA document will be produced. The 
> language of Procedure
> 21 is clear. It does NOT apply to those projects.
> 
> (3) The proposed motion is out of character with the existing rule. 
> The existing P&P, as part of the Five Criteria language, says:
> 
> *17.5.4.1 "A working group proposing a wireless project is 
> required to demonstrate coexistence through the preparation 
> of a Coexistence Assurance (CA) document unless it is not 
> applicable... If the Working Group elects not to create a CA 
> document, it will explain to the EC the reason the CA 
> document is not applicable."
> 
> In other words, for future projects, the existing P&P 
> acknowledges that a CA document may or may not be applicable 
> to wireless projects, leaving the WG with the opportunity to 
> argue a position. The proposed motion would have the EC jump 
> to its own conclusion that a CA document is applicable to all 
> of the pre-existing projects.
> 
> 
> On a related issue: I would like to better understand how the 
> CA got into the P&P in the first place. The minutes of the EC 
> meeting of Friday
> 19 November 19 2004 state, under item 10.06: "Motion: to 
> amend the 802 P&P by applying document 19-04/0032r3 to the 
> 802 P&P. Moved: 
> Shellhammer/Sherman  Result: 8/2/5 Passes." However, I 
> question whether a vote of 8/2/5 was sufficient to pass the 
> motion. In my understanding, a change of P&P requires 
> approval of 2/3 of the EC. 
> Perhaps someone can explain the grounds for ruling that the 
> motion was carried.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:47 AM -0800 06/03/16, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> >IEEE 802 EC,
> >
> >
> >
> >             I have modified the motion that Ajay made at the Friday 
> >closing plenary, with the intent to see if it is possible to 
> come to an
> 
> >agreement on text that would be acceptable to the executive 
> committee.
> >I will take comments on this text and if we can agree on the text I
> will
> >run an electronic EC ballot on the resulting text, with Paul's 
> >permission.
> >
> >
> >
> >             Here is the text I drafted based on what I 
> received from 
> >Ajay.  Please send me and the rest of the EC your comments.
> >
> >
> >
> >CA Motion
> >
> >Any wireless project intended for unlicensed operation, that could 
> >potentially cause interference to an 802 wireless standard, 
> and whose 
> >PAR was approved prior to November 2004 and begins working 
> group letter
> 
> >ballot after November 2004 shall produce a coexistence assurance 
> >document and distribute that CA document with working group letter 
> >ballot and Sponsor ballot.
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> 
> ----------
> 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.