Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Just out of curiosity, where does a vote by acclimation (or would it be
unanimous consent in this case) fit into the scheme of things?
At 02:32 PM 11/10/2007 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>Tony/Colleagues-
>
>I agree with Tony that the language needs to be tightened up.
>
>While I hesitate to have "special" voting rules instead of just referring
>to one of our existing procedures, I believe there is a fatal flaw in what
>Tony has proposed.
>
>Our original intention was to have term limits be the default situation.
>The 75% vote was intended to allow things to be overridden by a highly
>affirmative action (a principle which I support). I believe Tony's
>proposal waters that down significantly in its current proposed form.
>
>The problem of 75% of Y/(Y+N) is that those not voting are weight in the
>affirmative. In this particular case (a) the bias is in the opposite of
>our alleged default and (b) it takes a lot of courage to stick your hand
>up to say you hate the current chair (hard enough to brash American,
>effectively impossible for some other cultures).
>
>Therefore, I propose that the method of vote should be (from Tony's list
>below):
> > - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>
>
>I acknowledge that does not solve the problem completely, voters can still
>abstain by leaving the room. This could be solved (perhaps) by instead using:
> > - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or
> not).
>
>
>There is a problem with too though. Many (most?) WGs don't have anything
>near 100% of the voting members show up at a plenary. This effectively
>raises the bar significantly (too far in my opinion). We could use 50% of
>the voting membership on a vote taken at the plenary but that has a
>potential unevenness problem between WGs.
>
>Therefore, my choice remains:
> > - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>
>
>
>Appropriate fruit for discussion during a P&P meeting
>
>Best regards,
>
>Geoff
>
>
>At 05:34 AM 11/8/2007 , 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.
Bob Heile, Ph.D
Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
11 Louis Road
Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
email: bheile@ieee.org
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.