Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution+++ AudCom
Bob -
I totally agree with your conclusion.
Regards,
Tony
At 21:30 12/07/2007, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Colleagues:
>
>The LMSC may go to anyone (s)he wishes to for advice. If during a
>meeting there is someone on whom the Chair wants to ask for advice
>(whispered or electronically amplified) I'm fine with that. Should we
>be using RROR as our parliamentary guide -- absolutely. Should we get
>enmeshed with RROR to the point where we are trying to catch each other
>with RROR parliamentary tricks and traps -- absolutely not. I
>personally see no reason for an LMSC parliamentarian.
>
>--Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:54 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed
>Resolution+++ AudCom
>
>Matt,
>
> Are you suggesting that the Executive Committee not follow
>Roberts Rules regarding the responsibilities of the Parliamentarian?
>That would seem strange to me, since one of the Parliamentarian's
>responsibilities is to identify the proper implementation of Roberts
>Rules.
>
>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: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 10:21 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed
>Resolution+++ AudCom
>
>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.
>
>----------
>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.