Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Steve -
PARs and drafts are NOT the only output documents of a WG. We also generate
liaisons and position papers to other organizations, and meeting minutes,
for example; I believe that motions approving these are rightly considered
to be technical motions also.
I agree that "output documents" is vague, but the way to fix that is to add
a definition of what the list of things that constitute "output documents"
actually is, and then use the term. However, the list of things that need
to be decided by a "technical" (75% approval) vote of the WG is ABSOLUTELY
NOT IMHO restricted to output documents; for example, a motion to impose a
directed position on a Chair, or a motion to remove a Chair from office,
should very definitely be considered to be "technical" votes as opposed to
procedural (decided by the Chair) matters! So I think the fundamental
problem with this change to defining the "procedural/technical" distinction
only in terms of output documents is that in doing so, there is a class of
decisions that must be made by the WG that fall outside the (current)
definition of "Technical" and that should have been included.
Regards,
Tony
At 20:26 06/09/2006, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Mat,
>
> I vote NO but will change my vote to YES if the following
>changes are made.
>
>1. In Section 7.2.4.3 (Chair's Function) change "output documents
>of the Working Group" to "either a PAR or a draft." The phrase "output
>documents" is too vague for my taste. Since those are the two output
>documents of a working group I think it is better to list them than to
>use such a vague phrase.
>
>2. In Section 7.2.4.2.1 drop the sentence "Non-technical motions,
>when allowed, are determined in accordance with parliamentary
>procedure." Once again the phrase "parliamentary procedure" is way too
>vague. If the working groups want to describe how they hold these
>non-technical motions using specific language that would be fine, but
>this vague statement does not work.
>
>3. In Section 7.2.4.2.1 drop the phrase "at least." A majority is
>well defined and does not require that phrase, since it is included
>within the definition.
>
> Just one observation. In this document the section entitled
>"Chair's Function" is numbered 7.2.4.3, but that section number is also
>used later. I thin there is a small typo in the section number.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
>Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:16 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
>
>Dear EC members,
>
>
>
>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot titled
>'WG Voting Procedures'. This ballot was approved at the Friday July
>21st, 2006 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the
>meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in the
>attached ballot document.
>
>
>
>Ballot Duration: 9/3/2006 - 10/3/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
>
>
>
>WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
>groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please direct any
>comments on this revision to the reflector, myself, and Al Petrick (
>apetrick@widefi.com) for collection. A ballot resolution teleconference
>will be scheduled for sometime prior to the November 2006 Plenary
>Session.
>
>
>
>Thanks & Regards,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>Senior Member Technical Staff
>BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>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.