Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
I have always held that the Chair has final say on P&P interpretations.
I believe that is per Roberts rather than the rules, but I'm pretty tied
up and haven't made time to look it up...
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: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:31 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Steve -
That question (how do we agree on an interpretation) was also at the
back of my mind. I would be fascinated to know what the answer is (or
even if there is one!).
Regards,
Tony
At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Tony,
>
> Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are
>vague.
>
> I was not around when the phrase "greater than 8 years" was
>introduced in the P&P so I can't speak to the intent. Cleary there are
>(at least) two possible interpretations of "greater than 8 years,"
>
>1. Eight years plus one day
>2. Nine years
>
> Clearly the safest interpretation is #1.
>
> I think we need to be a little more careful in writing our
rules
>going forward so less interpretation of vague statements is necessary.
>
> Mat, do we have a method of agreeing on interpretation of
vague
>rules? I know that sounds silly but Tony asked a good question and I
>don't know how the EC answers such a question. Is it based on EC
member
>consensus? That seems to be what we are doing. Maybe that is the best
>way. Does Paul make an interpretation? Does Mat? It seems the best
>method is some form of consensus of the EC. We are kind of a special
>group since we write the rules and also interpret the rules. We are
>both the Legislature and the Judicial system. :)
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:00 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>I have a question for clarification of the current P&P with regard to
>the wording in 7.2.2. It states:
>
>"An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given WG
>for a total of more than
>eight years in that office may not run for election to that office
>again, unless the question of
>allowing that individual to run for election again is approved by a
>75% vote of the WG one
>plenary in advance of that election."
>
>I am now in my 8th year as 802.1 Chair, having first been appointed
>Chair at the end of the March 2000 Plenary session. So when the
>elections are run in March 2008, I will have been Chair for not quite
>8 years, as the appointment occurs at the end of the session (see
>7.1.2). I therefore interpret the above as meaning that I don't need
>a 75% approval vote of my WG in November to allow me to run for
>re-election in March. Is my interpretation correct?
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>----------
>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.