Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
I believe we have deferred to Paul for interpretations in the past.
I believe Bob O'Hara's info summarizes Robert's very well, and you can
always appeal Paul's decision.
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 J Lemon
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:23 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
I'm not so sure that this an interpretation of "the rules", depending
upon what "the rules" means. Again, I don't care enough to research this
myself :-) . In any case, as much as I have the utmost respect for Paul,
I'm not sure I would like to establish such a precedent for all time,
and would prefer to reserve the right of interpretation for the EC body.
But I don't care so much that I would make a stink about it.
jl
On 10/30/2007 2:10 PM, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> Robert's Rules does say that the chair determines how the rules are
> interpreted, by making a decision.
>
> "By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the
> authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of
> parliamentary law." (RROR Ch VIII, section 24)
>
> If the body disagrees, there is a motion to appeal from the decision
of
> the chair. This motion takes the decision from the chair and allows
it
> to be made by the body.
>
> "But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on
such
> a question. By one member making (or "taking") the appeal and another
> seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and vested in the
> assembly for final decision." (ibid)
>
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:34 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: 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.
>
> ----------
> 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.