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.