Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Steve,
I still have to disagree with you that the motion passed in November
2004. Even if the wording was to count only those EC members who voted,
the tally ("Result: 8/2/5") shows that 15 EC members voted. Two thirds
of those 15 voters, or 10 voters, would need to vote in favor of the
motion for it to pass. Consequently, the motion failed, without regard
to what was recorded in the minutes or the ruling by the chair.
I believe we need Paul to participate in this thread and to say that the
motion actually failed. The result should be that the text currently in
the P&P should be immediately removed. A new P&P change process would
need to be started, in order to include the text in some future update
of the P&P.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:39 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Hi Bill,
Actually the motion passed as was recorded in the minutes. We
had a discussion of the rules at the time and the interpretation was, as
is stated in the rules at that time, the motion required 2/3 of the EC
members who voted.
By the way, the minutes of that meeting were approved over a
year ago at the March 2005 meeting.
Now that the rules have been modified any new motion would
require 2/3 of all EC members.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Quackenbush
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:48 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Roger, et al,
Having been present at the 3/14/03 EC meeting and being the one that
requested the instruction "to change the text 'all voting members of the
Executive Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting
rights' in
clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5" be included the motion, I believe that Roger's
reconstruction of the events is correct.
I requested the instruction be included to eliminate the potential
ambiguity of the phrase 'all voting members of the Executive Committee'
that occurred 4 times in sections 3.6.2 and 3.6.5 of the text that Mat
presented for approval. The subsequent editing of the P&P text to
incorporate the approved changes was incomplete resulting in the
ambiguous phrase 'two thirds of all voting Executive Committee members
with voting rights' appearing in the second paragraph of section 3.6.5
as Roger has observed.
So it appears to me that the question is what is the status of
unapproved text in the published version of the P&P. Does the
unapproved text acquire standing and take precedence over the approved
text because the unapproved text was published or does only approved
text have standing?
Best regards,
Bill Q.
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>
> I've done a little research as to how the 2/3 rule has evolved. Kind
> of long, but interesting.
>
> The "old" rule (valid up through at least the JULY 12, 2002 revision)
said:
>
> "LMSC approval shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>
> At the SEC meeting of 14 March 2003, we were presented with a ballot
> resolution that would change the text to:
>
> "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 members of the Executive Committee."
>
> However, the EC appears to have been concerned about possible
> ambiguity here, because it approved the rule change with a
> modification:
>
> "Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
> instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
> Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
> clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5. Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee Passes:
> 10/0/2". [The text under discussion was in 3.6.5]
>
> So, by my reckoning, the rule became:
>
> "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 Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>
> There is a problem, however. The P&P issued as effective MARCH 14,
> 2003 says the following:
>
> "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."
>
> As you can see, whoever edited the rules change forgot to delete the
> first instance of the word "voting". Therefore, the ambiguity that
> the SEC sought to remove remained in the P&P. The erroneous text
> remained through 2004.
>
> The situation cleared again in the MARCH 21, 2005 revision:
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed P&P revision shall
> require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members
> with voting rights (regardless of whether they are present)."
>
> which is where we stand today.
>
> Fascinating history.
>
> To me, the application of the CA issue is clear. To Bob O'Hara, our
> resident parliamentarian, the denominator [using the language in the
> P&P at the time] includes abstains. There seems to be some
> disagreement about this interpretation. However, there is only one
> possible interpretation of the rule that was actually in force -
> although not stated corrected in the P&P. Under the rule that was in
> force, the coexistence text was NOT approved.
>
> Roger
>
> At 04:01 PM -0800 06/03/16, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> >Pat,
> >
> >The wording of the proportion required for approval is the same in
both
> >the November 2004 and current P&P. I believe that the quote from the
> >P&P "two thirds of all voting EC members
> >with voting rights" is pretty clearly stating that the denominator is
to
> >be the total number of votes (Y + N + abstain). If this were not the
> >requirement, the statement would be that a "2/3 majority" is required
> >for approval.
> >
> >So, I stand by my earlier interpretation that the motion actually
failed
> >in November.
> >
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf
Of
> >Pat Thaler
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >Thanks, I would read that old text "two thirds of all voting EC
members
> >with voting rights" to mean yes votes are at least 2/3 of yes plus no
> >votes. In Robert's Rules, an abstain normally isn't a vote, we
usually
> >use y/(y+n) and we are usually very careful to state when we are
> >requiring a vote of y over total voting membership.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:31 PM
> >To: Pat Thaler; ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****;
> >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Pat,
> >
> > I was actually quoting from the November 2004 rules, which I
> >happened to have on my PC. It is attached. I think I had that one
> >around since I was participating in making rules changes back then.
Boy
> >the good old days. :)
> >
> > Looks like the current rules have been clarified.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Steve
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:17 PM
> >To: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****; Shellhammer,
Steve;
> >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.