Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
John -
I'm not sure that I mind either way. My intent in
identifying it as a technical vote was to ensure
that it didn't get wrapped up in the bag of
things that could be determined according to RR.
Your version has exactly the same effect.
Regards,
Tony
At 21:48 08/11/2007, J Lemon wrote:
>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.