[802SEC] FW: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Resend since I did not see this hit the reflector....
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: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:51 AM
To: Tony Jeffree; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
FYI, I'm really enjoying the raging debate, although I haven't had time
to participate myself. I do have a couple of comments.
Clearly clarification of the P&P is required in two areas.
Time limits on how long a WG Chair can hold that position
How to interpret the P&P
I'd prefer to complete the split in our own P&P before addressing these.
I also wish to note I'm not planning to maintain any lists of changes to
be makde. In the past I tried to do this and couldn't keep up. I wound
up with a list of about 40 important P&P changes that just kept growing
and I could never address them all. I remind the group that anyone can
put forward and ballot a P&P revision and encourage others to champion
resolution of their particular concerns.
An important point for this specific situation is that we as a group
can't interpret anything. We vote on motions, approve or disapprove.
An individual has to bring forward an interpretation, and then someone
would have to make a motion to accept it. I see nothing wrong with
requiring the chair be the person who crafts interpretations (hopefully
with input and support from others). Unless there is objection, I see
no reason for requiring a vote (it's just more time and debate in the
process). If there is objection, I think appealing the decision of
Chair is a reasonable mechanism to bring it to the group for a decision.
One other point - I don't want to add any more rules than we need to.
Robert's provides a firm foundation for resolving many issues. We can
always over rule it in our P&P. If we brought forward a change to make
Robert's binding (but below all other formal governance in our groups
(including working groups) how many would object?
It would probably make my life easier since I'd feel less obligated to
try and resolve many issues if I could just point to Robert's.....
Thanks,
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: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:18 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.