Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Bob:
A few nits, On your first set of edits:
What if the EC doesn't confirm the elected officer (see 7.1.2 last
paragraph), does the term begin after the closing EC or when confirmed?
The term also ends if the WG chooses to hold an election (last paragraph
of 7.2.2). This is an example of problems that occur when attempting to
list all exceptions instead of a blanket statement that would catch all
(e.g., unless the term of office is cut short by resignation or other
reasons). Those other reasons I expect include death and incapacity
also (something if needed we would handle under removal for cause right
now).
In general, I have problems with all the "officer roles" related edits
you propose. There are more officer roles that Chair and Vice Chair.
Secretary is defined in 7.2.2.3 and a Treasurer (most of us would
classify as a WG officer) if required in 7.2.6.1,b if there is a
treasury. We can mandate a minimum set of officers at the LMSC level,
but such definition of LMSC officers should not be restrictive (which
with the "two officer roles" in your edits you do. BTW, AudCom has
reactivated work on baseline WG P&P where the current draft defines
these other officers also, so we'll do better not defining WG Officers
more restrictively in LMSC documents.
Paragraph two would I believe make the Secretary (e.g.) subject to EC
confirmation, a major change.
BTW. Most (all?) the 7.2.2 text would I think be extracted into an LMSC
Operations Manual.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
(boohara)
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:45 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules
change
Tony,
I like the changes you have made and would suggest there are a few more
small changes that will reduce the ambiguity even further. I have added
my changes to those you have proposed.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:34 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules
change
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.