Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Tony:
We must operate under that approved P&P. Any changes we make are not
effective until accepted by AudCom and the SASB. AudCom will not review
P&P more than once a year. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with this
change being higher priority. Mat's "grand de-unification" process as
you phrase it isn't Mat's, it is a directive from AudCom and they have
given us a little more than a year to accomplish it (e.g., the next time
we can get our P&P reviewed). We may be able to ask for and get special
disposition for an earlier review of the "grand de-unification", but I'm
confident we will not get any such special consideration of a change
such as this.
I believe the split of the P&P has to be the highest priority task.
Because we only get one shot per year on changes, we also need to make
sure we get any priority changes (that belong in the LMSC P&P, rather
than the LMSC Operations Manual) in the next P&P version for AudCom
review. Any change though should be based on the split documents,
otherwise we are wasting a lot of effort.
--Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules
change
I see a major rat-hole opening up here here which has the potential
to de-rail at least part of the intent of my proposed changes.
There are two discussions going on here:
1) What the rules need to express; and
2) The best way of representing that in order to minimize repetition,
centralize definitions of things, or whatever.
The very immediate problem is item 1); to a first order, as long as
the text expresses what we need it to express, I'm not much bothered
about the finer points of item 2).
Item 2) sounds to me like fodder for Mat's planned "grand
de-unification" process - converting the existing P&P into something
that AudCom can sign up to, plus our own local by-laws or whatever we
choose to call them. That is a long-term process anyway. So I don't
want us to end up in a situation where fixing this (non-urgent) part
of the problem gets in the way of fixing the immediate problem,
although I broadly agree with the points made so far relative to item
2).
A comment on part of what Carl said though. Quote: "Then, if we
want/feel_we_need_to set a higher bar than a simple majority for a
particular item in other sections of our P&P, then all we need to do
is to say "by a vote of xx% of the EC."
NO!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
That just gets us back down the rat-hole of having to understand what
"a vote of the EC" is, and whether the EC is an entity or a
collection of members. Is it:
- A vote of all of the EC (voting, non-voting, present, or absent); or
- Etc. Etc. (see my previous list).
Even with a definition of the default voting rule, we still have to
be very specific about how we specify any exceptions to it.
Regards,
Tony
At 06:05 09/11/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>Further comments in context below ...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:26 PM
> > To: Grow, Bob
> > Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: 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.
>
>Agreed ...
>
> > 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.
>
>I think that whatever percentage is specified in any section of our
P&P,
>the demonimator should always be clearly specified as Y/(Y+N) of those
>present and voting (abstains and "did not votes" should not count in
the
>denominator).
>
>Then, if we want/feel_we_need_to set a higher bar than a simple
majority
>for a particular item in other sections of our P&P, then all we need to
>do is to say "by a vote of xx% of the EC." And the general section on
>voting should say something like, "Unless specified elsewhere as a
specific
>requirement for a particular voting issue, a simple majority (Y/(Y+N))
>of those voting members of the EC present and voting, or voting via an
>electronic ballot, shall be required to decide the matter. In any case
>where this P&P requires a higher percentage threshold of approval than
a
>simple majority, that percentage shall be determined on the basis of
>(Y/(Y+N)) of those voting members of the EC present and voting."
>
>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.