Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
As long as a rule is something in our Operations Manual, parliamentary procedure provides a way to modify it temporarily with a vote to suspend the rules. We can't modify rules in our P&P with a vote.
Changing our P&P is hard because we can only do it once a year and it only takes effect after AudCom review. For our OM, I don't think our process is inherently complex or cumbersome. The hard part about it is agreeing on what rules we want and managing to write them clearly.
Sometimes, we don't agree on the change that should be made.
More often we have trouble getting it written down in a way that the rule is clear, we have trouble getting the busy individuals in the EC to get their comments in and get us all together at a meeting to resolve them.
It is the difficulty of getting us all to agree and then getting it written correctly, not the process that is usually at fault.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:02 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings
Buzz-
Your trial period is perhaps a reasonable approach for general problems
as well as our current proposal.
It really isn't clear to me until we test your format against some other
situations/proposals.
The only specific critique I have at this point with your 4 choices is
that #2 has the potential for abuse if we keep extending a trial
forever. I believe that there ought to be a limit on the number of
renewals.
With respect to your statement:
"I would not support a plan that prohibits use of this proposal until
the necessary rules changes has been effected, adopted, and approved by
the IEEE-SA."
That is a delightful sentiment but I fear:
- That might be interpreted by AudCom and the SA as an attempt to
subvert their rules approval process
- We would be in a VERY poor position should any action we take
under a trial rule be appealed.
Geoff
On 4/25/10 8:44 AM, Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee wrote:
>
> HI Geoff, I must say that I don't disagree with your assessment. I
> also believe that the root of the problem is the cumbersome rules
> process and how it prevents us from being able to make expeditious
> process enhancements. So I would propose we look for a way to have a
> "trial use" process that allows us by simple majority to adopt a
> proposed rules change for a time limited period to assess the efficacy
> of that change. Before the end of the trial period we must either:
> (1) vote to adopt the change and put it in the queue for our next
> rules update, or (2) vote to extend the trial period for another
> period (with some possible changes applied), or (3) reject the
> proposed rule and end the trial, or (4) allow the trial period to
> expire and the rule is thereby vacated. I would agree that a
> discussion with working groups may be warranted and would support a
> plan to delay consideration of the proposed change until the July
> session. I would not support a plan that prohibits use of this
> proposal until the necessary rules changes has been effected, adopted,
> and approved by the IEEE-SA.
>
> I think the other concerns with respect to openness and notice can be
> addressed with some thoughtful process design and the right support
> tools. J
>
> *Thanx, Buzz*
>
> *Please note my contact info: *
>
> Dr. Everett O (Buzz) Rigsbee
>
> IEEE-802 LMSC Meeting Manager
>
> 7750 80th Place SE
>
> Mercer Island, WA 98040-5912
>
> ph/fx: 206-236-2229
>
> cell: 206-818-4978
>
> SkypeID: BRigsB
>
> BRigsB@ieee.org
>
> *From:* Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@ieee.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:00 PM
> *To:* BRigsB@ieee.org
> *Cc:* 'Paul Nikolich'; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Geoff Thompson
> *Subject:* Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of
> interim EC telecon meetings
>
> Buzz-
>
> I have to disagree with you on this.
> This is not about us as the Exec, a body of less than 20 people.
> Our rules and past procedures properly set the expectations to our 802
> constituency on how we do and will operate.
> Our rules, while they do not explicitly forbid meetings of the
> proposed sort, clearly are oriented around something else, i.e. 2
> face-to-face meetings at plenaries and mail ballots in between meetings.
>
> I don't think we are too anal about "The Rules" given that we are an
> organization of over 1000.
>
> I do think that our rules change process is broken.
> It is far too cumbersome and painful to change our rules.
> I believe we need to give some serious thought to lightening up the
> rules change process.
>
> I am fully in favor of taking a vote on "an agreement in principle" on
> the phone meetng issue at the closing EC in July.
> I don't think the EC should vote on this before consulting with the
> Working Groups whom we represent.
>
> I do not think this is a step we should take on the fly and without
> warning between plenaries.
> I do not think this is a step we should take lightly.
>
> Geoff
>
> On 4/23/10 4:47 PM, Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee wrote:
>
> Colleagues, I honestly think we are beginning to be way too anal about
> "The Rules". My suggestion would be that if we have a proposal for new
> policy which is not strictly prohibited by our existing rules but not
> explicitly allowed either, then we may by a simple majority vote to enable a
> trial period for the new policy, so that we can decide if it is in fact a
> beneficial and worthwhile policy or not, and then based on that decide
> whether to proceed with the rule change to make the policy explicit or
> abandon the policy. Given the large amount and time and energy that goes
> into making a rule change, I would hate to see us have to go through all of
> that only to later decide it wasn't a useful policy after all and have to
> reverse the rule change. I don't think we want our rules to handcuff us and
> prevent us from trying out possible process improvements to judge whether
> they are useful or not. Once we are sure we want to make the change, it is
> a simple matter to bundle the rule change text into the next rule change
> process cycle, and if that takes a while, so be it; it does not need to
> prevent us from benefitting from the new process.
>
> We've lived with rules in process for extended periods without serious
> side-effects. I don't see why we need to suddenly allow rules procedures to
> inhibit and deter all innovations. Allowing for rule extensions to
> accommodate new tools and process improvements should be an easy matter not
> a grueling procedure. :-)
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Please note my contact info:
> Dr. Everett O (Buzz) Rigsbee
> IEEE-802 LMSC Meeting Manager
> 7750 80th Place SE
> Mercer Island, WA 98040-5912
> ph/fx: 206-236-2229
> cell: 206-818-4978
> SkypeID: BRigsB
> BRigsB@ieee.org <mailto:BRigsB@ieee.org>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org <mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Geoff Thompson
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: Paul Nikolich
> Cc:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC
> telecon meetings
>
> Paul-
>
> I think you have slightly mis-characterized the responses
>
> I would characterize #2 as
>
> 2) Not necessarily a bad idea but orthogonal to the spirit and letter of
> our rules.
> Should not proceed until until the topic is tackled within the scope of
> our rules change process
>
> Geoff
>
> On 4/23/10 1:03 PM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> So far the responses generally fall into two categories:
>
>
>
> 1) good idea, need to work out details, go for it
>
> (Apurva, Buzz, Steve, Bruce, Jon, JohnH, Subir, Mike)
>
>
>
> 2) not a bad idea, have concerns, proceed with caution
>
> (Pat, Mat, Tony, James, Geoff, JohnL, David)
>
>
>
> Any further opinions? A few people (BobH, Roger, Mark) have yet to
>
> weigh in.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> --Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich"
>
> <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET> <mailto:paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
>
> To:<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> <mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:19 AM
>
> Subject: [802SEC] straw poll on interim EC telecon meetings
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear EC members,
>
>
>
> I'd like to get your feedback on holding an EC meeting via
>
> teleconference between plenary sessions (for example in the 1st week
>
> of June, October and February). My though is we'd hold a 2 hour
>
> telecon to make decisions on time-critical items such as PAR
>
> approvals, Sponsor Ballot initiation approvals, RevCom submissions, etc.
>
>
>
> I'd make sure we'd have an agenda posted 30 days in advance an all
>
> the materials necessary to make such decisions available for review
>
> at least one week before the telecon.
>
>
>
> Thoughts? Please provide your feedback by 23APR. I'll summarize the
>
> feedback and if the response is positive, I'd like us to consider
>
> holding the first such meeting 1pm-3pm ET Friday 04JUN2010.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> --Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> 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.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.