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

Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P



Arnie,


The P&P specifies a process for changing it(self) :-)

Additionally, AudCom only wants to review one P&P update/change per year, so
we are even more constrained in our ability to actually change the P&P.

Hopefully this will improve when we finally implement a split into a (really
stripped down) P&P and a separate "Ops Manual" that is easier to update and
doesn't fall under the AudCom review constraints.

For now, I think the best we can do is agree on an interpretation, approve
it by motion and vote, and capture it in the minutes of the EC meeting.

Regards,
Carl
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of 
> greenspana@bellsouth.net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: J Lemon; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
> 
> All:
> 
> Voting on an interpretation works for me as long as it is 
> coupled with clarifying the inerpretation that we come up 
> with in the P&P by changing the wording.
> 
> Arnie
> 
> -------------- Original message from J Lemon 
> <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>: -------------- 
> 
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> ----------
> 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.