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

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



If we have an established precedence for doing such, I will not object
to continuing the practice, at least until such time as we formally
address how we handle interpretation requests.

On 10/30/2007 10:00 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.