Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Bob -
Your points are well taken. However, we still have to deal with the
immediate problem of determining what actions the current P&P require
of us with regard to conduct of the upcoming elections in March and
what (if any) pre-election actions are required in November. Given
that, as I believe I have demonstrated, even the proper conduct of
the "75% vote of the WG" procedure is open to a considerable range of
interpretations, the urgent piece of work right now (in my view, at
least - maybe because I have a direct interest in the outcome!) is to
reach a conclusion as to what the "correct" interpretation of the
existing P&P is so that those potentially affected can take the
proper course of action. It is hard to operate under the current P&P
if we don't agree on what they mean. My intent in drafting changes to
the existing text was to attempt to write down what we *intended* the
meaning to be.
Regards,
Tony
At 16:57 09/11/2007, Grow, Bob wrote:
>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.