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.