Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Tony,
I agree 100%.
I'd just like to add a note. You propose that the rules should be such:
-That we only ever talk about one form of "Voting in meetings" - and
that one form requires 75% approval to pass.
The point I'd like to make is that this is exactly what the rules say
and have always said (since I've been around).
Roger
On Sep 7, 2006, at 08:48 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Mat -
>
> I vote Disapprove.
>
> Nits:
>
> There is something screwed up about the subclause numbering (there
> are two instances of 7.2.4.3 and one of them precedes 7.2.4.2).
>
> Substantive issues:
>
> As Steve Shellhammer has pointed out, and as amplified in my
> response to his comments, the whole issue of Technical vs
> Procedural in this set of rules is somewhat screwed up.
>
> Firstly, it makes no sense at all to say that the Chair decides
> procedural (sorry, non-technical) issues, and then to go on to say
> that when the Chair decides to use the WG's help in determining a
> procedural issue by taking a vote of the WG, that it should be done
> in a particular way. For example, if I decide that an issue is
> procedural (choosing the venue for the next interim, maybe), but
> that I want the WG to assist me in that decision by running a straw
> poll, I don't want the P&P to impose rules on how that straw poll
> is conducted, and I absolutely DO NOT want that informal mechanism
> suddenly to be subject to parliamentary procedure. That is just
> plain nuts. Either an issue is procedural, and the Chair gets to
> decide the outcome (including taking advice/help from the WG, if he/
> she feels it appropriate, and in any way that he/she may choose),
> or it is not procedural, and the WG gets to vote, and with the
> outcome subject to 75% approval. So introducing the concept of some
> other kind of "non-technical motion" into the vocabulary,
> surrounded with wooly words about them being subject to
> parliamentary procedure, isn't helpful and simply allows us to
> continue to get wrapped around this particular axle.
>
> Secondly, as I pointed out in response to Steve, the set of issues
> that require a 75% approval certainly include drafts and PARs, but
> is very much NOT restricted to those two items.
>
> So, what I would like to see an alternative approach along these
> lines:
>
> - That we only ever talk about one form of "Voting in meetings" -
> and that one form requires 75% approval to pass.
>
> - That the set of things that we absolutely require to be decided
> by a WG vote (75% approval) gets clearly stated, along with the
> principle that lies behind it, so that if we've missed anything
> from the set then it is as clear as possible how the set would be
> populated.
>
> - That the question of how the Chair might run a non-technical
> "motion", or any other kind of procedure for that matter, in order
> to assist in the determination of a procedural issue, doesn't get
> discussed in the P&P at all, as it is all covered under the blanket
> statement that "The Chair decides procedural issues".
>
> If I get time in the next few days I will propose some wording
> changes.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> At 04:16 04/09/2006, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>> 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.