Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change

I heartily agree.

On 11/8/2007 3:21 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> We will have a much cleaner P&P if as much as possible we centralize the voting and think carefully before specifying what majority is required throughout the document.  Tony listed a number of permutations.  I think it would be best to state how a vote in a meeting is counted and only where necessary put in language that either intentionally or unintentionally defines the denominator.  So, in this case, if the desire of the waiver of term limits is to be a 75% of Y/Y+N, then only the 75% majority of a meeting vote belongs in the waiver requirement and the specification of what is a denominator is covered in the general section. 
>
> --Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
>
> Carl,
>
> 7.2.4.1.1 is not specific to the long term chair renewal vote, but just
> a general discussion of voting. I thought it wise to modify it to allow
> for non-technical votes to be dealt with in several manners, and to keep
> it from contradicting the 75% rule for the specific non-technical vote
> that we are discussing.
>
> jl
>
> On 11/8/2007 2:13 PM, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>   
>>> 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”.
>>>     
>>>       
>> I agree with John ... it's not really a technical vote, but we want a reasonably high bar.
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>     
>>>       
>> However, I think that putting Roberts first (or even *in*) the sentence above itself introduces some potential ambiguity as to what controls.
>>
>> I prefer the explicit "this requires 75% approval ..." to be associated with the question of "Should the term limit be waived in this case?"
>>
>> I also think that this should reside in the 802 P&P and NOT in any WG P&P.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Carl
>>
>> ----------
>> 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.