Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
I agree with Bob ... An erroneous recording in the minutes should not impose
a change that did not, in fact, pass.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am NOT against coexistence ... I am simply
saying that a mistake was made and should be corrected.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:11 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.