Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
At 16:38 31/10/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>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.
So, presumably, those broad powers bestowed on the Chair by RROR also
allow the Chair to decide that RROR need not be followed....
Regards,
Tony
At 00:41 01/11/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Steve,
>
>You obviously didn't look at the other references. There is a reason
>all of them require the use of RROR. Let me cite one a bit higher in
>precedence, the IEEE Bylaws, where it says:
>
>"Parliamentary Procedures. Robert's Rules of Order (latest revision)
>shall be used to conduct business at meetings of the IEEE Board of
>Directors, Executive Committee, Major Boards, Standing Committees and
>other organizational units of the IEEE unless other rules of procedure
>are specified in the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New
>York, the IEEE Certificate of Incorporation, the IEEE Constitution,
>these Bylaws, the IEEE Policies, resolutions of the IEEE Board of
>Directors, or the applicable governing documents of those organizational
>units provided such organizational documents are not in conflict with
>any of the foregoing."
>
>Since our P&P do not specify "other rules of procedure" that are not in
>conflict with the IEEE Bylaws, i.e., its requirement to use RROR, this
>requirement is binding on the LMSC and the EC.
>
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:15 PM
>To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>Bob,
>
> Actually I think I understand but respectfully disagree.
>
> The SA Bylaws says "Except as otherwise specified in these
>bylaws, meetings of the IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be run in
>accordance with the parliamentary procedures of Robert's Rules of Order
>(latest edition)."
>
> We of course are not talking about how to run Standards Board
>meetings but 802 EC meetings. So there are no rules of precedence
>stating that EC or for that matter WG meetings are to be run by Roberts
>Rules. Some WGs like 802.11 do have Roberts in their P&P. If we want
>that we of course could put Roberts in the 802 P&P, but it seems that
>some people are opposed to that idea.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
>(boohara)
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:33 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>Steve,
>
>I am afraid that you are just not grasping the concept here. There is
>no need for us to restate in our P&P what is already in a document that
>supersedes our P&P. In fact, it is quite dangerous and inefficient to
>do so. If we were to take that path, wouldn't we want to restate
>everything that is in all of the documents of higher precedence than our
>own P&P, up to and including the NY State Corporation Law? Given all
>those documents of higher precedence, don't you think we would need to
>update our own P&P more than once each year to stay in sync with them?
>
>The whole point of referencing those other document is specifically so
>we DON'T have to reproduce them in our P&P.
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:02 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>Bob,
>
> If we are not a democracy then we should stop voting on issues
>and stop debating issues and just let the chair decide everything. :)
>Why are we trying to come to a consensus on an issue if the EC does not
>decide the issue?
>
> If we want the chair to rule on interpretations of the P&P we
>should put that in the P&P. If we want the EC to rule on
>interpretations of the P&P we should put that in the P&P. However, I do
>not recommend we leave it unspecified. Of course it does afford us the
>opportunity to have these exciting discussions. :)
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
>(boohara)
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 3:27 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>Carl,
>
>I will point it out once more. The LMSC and EC is not a democracy.
>Much as members of the EC want to "interpret" the policies and
>procedures, they have no authority to do so. If you believe this is not
>correct, please cite your authority for that position. Here are my
>citations of authority for the position I have stated.
>
>Even though it has been relegated to "guide" status in our own P&P, the
>following documents of higher precedence supersede our own P&P,
>requiring the use of Robert's Rules of Order (RROR) for parliamentary
>procedure. These override our own P&P in this matter.
>
>IEEE Bylaws, Section I-300, clause 1
>IEEE-SA Operations Manual, clause 4.3, 4.4.4
>IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, clause 5.1
>IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 4.1.1, 5.8
>IEEE Computer Society Bylaws, Article 3 section 9
>
>Having now established that RROR is definitive on the question of how
>parliamentary procedure is to be handled in the LMSC and EC, RROR has
>this to say about the duties of the presiding officer:
>
>"8) To decide all questions of order (23), subject to appeal (24) ..."
>(RROR Chap XV, section 47)
>
>Please note that this says "all questions of order", not some, not only
>those that folks feel comfortable leaving to the chair, but ALL
>questions of order.
>
>In section 23, the following is included in the list of items considered
>to be valid subjects of a point of order:
>
>"(a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or
>constitution) of the organization or assembly," (RROR Chap VIII,
>section 23, under "Further rules and explanation")
>
>So, it is quite clear in RROR that the chair is given the power and the
>duty to rule on interpretations of the bylaws and where they apply. In
>the situation that has precipitated this email thread, this means that
>the chair will be the one to decide if the current term limit text in
>our P&P means that a chair must have the 75%-approved motion of their
>working group in order to run for election after four terms or after
>something greater than four terms.
>
>Absent such a decision from the chair, I would suggest it is prudent for
>those that have served four terms and intend to run for reelection in
>March to have their working groups entertain a motion allowing them to
>do so during this plenary.
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:31 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
>Steve, et al,
>
>I agree with Steve that Roberts has been depricated to a "guide" and
>that
>our P&P is lacking in explicit guidance in this area.
>
>I also (with all due respect to Paul) do not agree with Bob that Paul
>has
>the unilateral authority to devine and rule what our intent was in such
>matters.
>
>Since we are going to be constrained in our ablity to ammend our P&P by
>AudCom restrictions going forward (as well as our own difficulty in
>making
>P&P changes), I think that this issue should be decided by the EC (an
>interpretation of what our intent was when we enacted the "75% approval
>exception," however ambibuous it may be, in our current P&P).
>
>Furthermore, in Tony's instant situation, I believe that we owe him the
>courtesy of a prompt interpretation so that he is sure of what is
>required
>of him in November and has a firm and supportable position in
>preparation
>for the next round of EC elections in March 2008.
>
>I therefore vigorously support Tony's request for a review and
>interpretation of this matter at the opening EC meeting of the Nvember
>plenary, to be voted and minuted in the minutes of the opening EC
>meeting.
>(If Tony does need a 75% approval vote of 802.1 members to run for
>another
>term, I think he needs to get that at the November plenary in
>preparation
>for March.) I believe that this is important enough that even if it
>takes us
>an hour, and requires that we defer some opening reports or other
>perfunctories, we should allow the required time to provide Tony with a
>clean and unambigous interpretation that he can rely upon.
>
>Regards,
>Carl
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> > Shellhammer, Steve
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:04 PM
> > To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > Interesting. Where in the 802 P&P is all this covered? I know
> > that Roberts Rules, which govern Parliamentary organizations, is a
> > recommended guide in our P&P, but is not a governing document
> > since some
> > people thought it best not to have it so.
> >
> > So I believe we are governed by our P&P, and other governing
> > documents. The P&P lays out what is the role of the chair and what is
> > the role of the EC. I have not seen anything in our P&P that
> > states who
> > interprets the P&P, in cases where interpretation is not self evident.
> >
> > So as far as I can tell we are ruled by the P&P and the P&P does
> > not cover this issue. Now, we might want to add this to our P&P and
> > then we can decide whether the Chair makes interpretations or the EC.
> > Matt I would recommend that we initiate such a P&P change. I would
> > request that we put this topic on the Sunday night rules meeting. I
> > guess I should show up now that I keep suggesting items for the agenda
> > :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> > (boohara)
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:38 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: 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.
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.