Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
John,
The EC is not a democracy. It is a parliamentary society. The chair
has very broad powers, including the ability to decide whether something
is within the scope of our policies and procedures, how those policies
and procedures are to be applied, and to decide how any ambiguities in
the policies and procedures are to be reconciled. Once the chair has
rendered a decision on any matter, the members of the EC have the right
to challenge that decision. Until that point, there is no decision to
be challenged.
In addition, there is no procedure for an "interpretation request" to
force a decision on the chair (or the EC) in our policies and
procedures. If there is perceived ambiguity in the policies and
procedures, there is a procedure specified for a member of the EC to
attempt to modify those policies and procedures. The policies and
procedures are not a standard, for which the SA has an interpretation
request procedure defined. The SA's interpretation request procedure
does not apply to the bylaws of the SA, only the standards developed
under it.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:27 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.