Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution+++ AudCom



Mat,

Perhaps we will have an ongoing argument about whether the EC's  
technical functions should be 0% or closer to 1% of its work. But it  
now seems that we agree that the EC's functions are almost all  
procedural.

This is one reason I cannot in any way support your language that says:

> 7.1.2.1 The LMSC Chair has the following responsibilities:
>  a) Decide which matters are procedural and which matters are  
> technical
>  b) When a vote by the EC is not possible, decide procedural matters

Let's consider a decision to forward a draft to Sponsor Ballot.  
Procedural or technical? Based on the discussion, it seems that we  
have pretty broad agreement that this is procedural. And the current  
P&P supports that view, via 7.33(e) ["Examine and approve Working  
Group draft standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group;  
not for technical content."]

I don't know the meaning of "when a vote by the EC is not possible"  
but, in my view, there is no situation in which the decision to  
forward a draft [or a PAR] should be granted to the EC Chair.

I'd appreciate your explanation as to why you introduced this notion  
into a ballot addressing AudCom concerns. Are you suggesting that  
AudCom demands that we grant this power to the EC Chair?

I'm against it. And I expect to remain in a Disapprove stance on this  
ballot as long as (b) remains.

Roger

P.S. What exactly is the meaning of (c): "Place matters to a vote by  
EC members"? Given that (e) prohibits the Chair from making a motion,  
what is the real responsibility demanded by (c)? I don't see any.



On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:

> Pat,
>
> Concerning the parliamentarian - We are in complete agreement  
> concerning
> the requirements to be a parliamentarian.  My point was I don't think
> Bob would be willing to forgo his voting rights to be  
> parliamentarian if
> we change the P&P as described.
>
> Concerning 'appointed positions' -  In your comments you made the
> statement 'Ideally we would clarify the voting chairs as elected and
> confirmed chairs.'  Other EC members requested that appointed members
> (even prior to election / confirmation) can have voting rights.  I  
> went
> with that opinion for my proposed resolution, which is in conflict  
> with
> your statement.  I will happily reconsider it and go with the majority
> at the Sunday meeting.  One additional point is I did not see a clear
> recommendation out of your comments concerning text on 'appointed' and
> 'acting' positions.  I agree with you that what we have is confusing,
> but don't see a clear resolution at the moment.  It would help if you
> could provide a specific set of changes you desire.
>
> Concerning having a description of Vice Chair positions - I agree with
> your point, and will try and draft some text for Sunday based on  
> inputs
> Paul has provided me.
>
> Concerning procedural vs technical - My opinion is that even if we are
> 99% procedural (which we probably are) we still need to allow for  
> the 1%
> that isn't procedural in our rules.  And once again, I make no claim
> that my recommended resolution fully represents everyone's  
> opinion.  It
> is really just my opinion based on what I heard everyone say.  I don't
> normally form a consensus opinion until the Sunday meeting since  
> that's
> our first opportunity for comment resolution. Perhaps in the future  
> I'll
> try and present everyone's desired changes as bracketed text.
>
> See you Sunday!
>
> Mat
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:34 PM
> To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA); STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed
> Resolution+++ AudCom
>
> Matt,
>
> By Robert's Rules of Order (Chpater XV Officers 47) a parlimentarian
> doesn't vote even if the parlimentarian would otherwise be a member of
> the body:
> "A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same
> duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality,
> and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on
> any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a
> deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that
> would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member
> feels that he cannot properly forego these rights in order to serve as
> parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the
> presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily  
> relinquish his
> position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion."
> The parlimentarian's main role seems to be to sit next to the chair  
> and
> whisper in his ear when consultation on parlimentary proceedure is
> needed.
>
> I also don't know what comment you think you were responding to with
> this: "Your thoughts on appointed positions not voting conflicts with
> other EC members" I certainly didn't express any such thought.
>
> As far as vice chairs, in the text we voted, there is nothing in  
> the EC
> duties section for vice chairs - instead the list of officers says  
> that
> the first vice chair serves as chair when the chair is unable to do  
> so.
> In the WG officer section, that is in the duties section. I was
> suggesting the editorial change of making the EC list of duties of
> officers more similar to the WG list by putting Vice Chairs in there
> instead of as part of the list of officers.
>
> And even if we deal with technical issues we also vote mainly on
> procedural issues so the text as it stood was not correct. As you
> quoted: "See 7.1.1 Function  'Provide procedural and, if necessary,
> technical guidance' puts procedural as our main function and allows
> technical "if necessary".
>
> Like Tony, I'm finding it difficult to relate your responses to the
> comments we made.
>
> Pat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US  
> SSA)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:52 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed  
> Resolution +++
> AudCom
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> As a reminder we will hold the usual LMSC P&P review meeting this  
> Sunday
> night.  Attached is a proposed resolution to comments on the AudCom
> ballot as a starting point for discussions on Sunday.  The primary
> agenda item for Sunday will be to come to consensus on a resolution  
> for
> the AudCom ballot.  If you can't make the meeting and have comments on
> the proposed resolution please forward them to the reflector for
> discussion.  I will consider all comments circulated during the Sunday
> P&P review.  Also, please be prepared to discuss the issues on the
> Chair's Guide as well on Sunday.  We will discuss that topic as time
> allows after we complete discussions on the AudCom revision ballot.
>
>
>
> As much as possible, I have accepted the comments people made.  In  
> some
> cases, I tried to improve upon the desired changes a bit.  In a few
> cases, I did not accept the requested change as I did not beleive with
> the rationale provided was valid.  Here is a short list of the comment
> sets and key differences in my proposed resolutions:
>
>
>
> Stuart's comments - Fully incorporated
>
> Steve's comment - I disagree that EC cannot make technical  
> decisions.  I
> adopted your other changes.
>
>                         Added Parliamentarian as non-voting, but that
> may make Bob O'Hara want to reconsider being parliamentarian...
>
>                         I snuck in emeritus.  Perhaps it is time  
> that we
> officially recognize Geoff's non-voting status....
>
>
>
> John Lemon's comments - Adopted all except
>
>                         I believe it is common parliamentary practice
> for the chair not to make motions
>
>
>
> Roger's comments
>
>                         Once again, yes, the EC CAN DEAL WITH  
> TECHNICAL
> ISSUES!
>
>                                     See 7.1.1 Function  'Provide
> procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the
>
> Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their
> charters.'
>
>                         Non members can't formally be entitled to have
> things considered.  But I agree on right of Appeal for everyone
>
>
>
> Pat's comments
>
>                         Again, we can deal with technical issues!
>
>                         Since some 'procedural votes' such as call the
> question are 66%, let's just reference Roberts Rules.
>
>                         Your thoughts on appointed positions not  
> voting
> conflicts with other EC members
>
>                                     For now I've gone with the other
> view point
>
>                         I don't understand your comment on moving Vice
> Chairs serving as Chairs.
>
>
>
> Tony's comments
>
>                         See alternate resolutions based on comments  
> from
> other EC members
>
>
>
> Mike Lynch
>
>                         See Alternate resolutions
>
>
>
> Thanks and Regards to all,
>
>
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> 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.