Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Unless Roberts really says such (I don't care enough to research whether
it does), I believe that we should handle interpretations the same way
our WGs handle interpretations: vote on a proposed interpretation.
On 10/29/2007 6:25 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> 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.
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.