Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
I'm mostly in agreement, with one minor difference. I don't like the
wording of
This vote is considered to be a technical vote (see 7.2.4.1.1);
i.e., it requires
approval by 75% or more of those members voting “Approve” and “Do
Not Approve”.
I see no reason to label the vote as technical just because it requires
the same approval percentage as technical votes. I'd be happier with
This vote requires approval by 75% or more of those members voting
“Approve” and “Do Not Approve”.
along with a modification of 7.2.4.1.1 from
Non-technical votes may be decided by voting procedures as defined
in Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition).
to
Non-technical votes may be decided by voting procedures as defined
in Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition),
or as specified in these P&P or in the P&P of the WG.
jl
On 11/8/2007 5:34 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Following the interesting discussion on the email exploder on this
> topic, I decided to take a shot at hacking the P&P text into something
> rather more watertight and hopefully rather closer to what we intended
> to say in the first place. As with all of these things, the closer you
> look at the existing text the more problems come out of the woodwork.
> So in addition to the initial problem of interpreting the number of
> years vs number of terms of office ambiguity, I came across the
> following problems:
>
> 1) Although the existing text specifies when terms of office come to
> an end, it only indirectly specifies what happens next.
>
> 2) The wording around the 10-year rule is sufficiently ambiguous that
> it could be interpreted as requiring someone that has spent 10 years
> as Vice Chair to undergo the 75% vote before standing for Chair (and
> vice versa). I know Bob Grow disagrees with me on this interpretation,
> but suffice it to say that if I wrote something similar in a draft
> standard I would expect to get comments requiring the ambiguity to be
> removed.
>
> 3) The text doesn't make it clear what question the WG should vote on
> in cases where the 75% approval is required. I.e., it says that
> something needs to be approved by 75%, but not what that something is.
>
> 4) (this is probably the worst of the lot, and in my view, makes it
> essential that we have a clear interpretation next week) The wording
> around the 75% vote does not specify what "a 75% vote of the WG"
> means. Hence, it is open to at least the following interpretations,
> some of which might be terribly difficult to achieve:
>
> - 75% of the people in the room (members and observers).
>
> - 75% of the participants in the WG (voting members and observers,
> whether in the room or not).
>
> - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or not).
>
> - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>
> - Same as a technical vote (75% of those voting members voting Approve
> and Disapprove).
>
> - Impossible to determine, as a WG is a single entity, so a 75% of it
> isn't a meaningful concept.
>
> - Some other interpretation that I haven't thought of.
>
> I have attached a marked-up version of the relevant sections that I
> believe fixes the problems that I have identified. My intention would
> be to use this as the basis for a rules change ballot.
>
> 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.