Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule changes for July meeting

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>]

James-

Well, my meaning was obvious (to me at least) but you are correct, we do 
need to have it crisply defined.
By "alternates" I specifically meant those persons who are allowed by 
rule to vote in place of a voting EC member when that person is not is 
not available for a meeting.

My opinion is that non-voting members don't need a support letter.  
Whether or not they are allowed to continue is (I believe) taken care of 
elsewhere in the "Membership Requirements", i.e. if they fall below the 
membership threshold they lose their seat.

Best regards,

    Geoff

Geoffrey O. Thompson
GraCaSI S.A.
Mountain View, CA 94043
<thompson@ieee.org>

On 67//12 10:24 AM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
> Geoff
>
> That would be OK, if we define what "alternates" are.  For example, I 
> do not have an alternate for my position (and I don't think I should 
> have one).
>
> Implicit in you choice is that we do not require non-voting members to 
> show financial support for their position nor require them to act and 
> vote as an individual and a professional.  There is some justification 
> for this, we would simply be saying that the non-voting members are 
> not necessary to the continuing function of the EC and hence their 
> absence from plenary (and potentially, the lack of time to support the 
> work away from meetings) will not impede the operation of the EC.
>
> I can see it either way and would look forward to other EC member's 
> opinion.
>
> James Gilb
>
> PS: Of course, if we take this tack, then we can't harass you for 
> letters in 2014, which would lower the entertainment value of the 
> March 2014 meeting. :)
>
> On 07/05/2012 06:18 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
> > James-
> > How about:
> >       b) "All voting members of the Sponsor and their alternates 
> > shall ..."
> >
> > Geoff
> >
> > On 57//12 5:15 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
> > > All
> > >
> > > In the interest of getting the P&P changes onto AudCom's agenda, I
> > > would like to start discussion of the proposed changes by email so
> > > that we can have some level of consensus by the Sunday night rules
> > > meeting that will lead to a successful motion on Monday morning.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, I would like to take up discussion of one of the proposed
> > > changes on this email in search of feedback.
> > >
> > > Every 2 years, the Recording secretary asks for letters of endorsement
> > > from potential EC members.  Currently the rule states "Any person to
> > > be confirmed by the Sponsor shall ...".  I had produced two 
> > > suggestions:
> > >
> > >  a) "All members of the Sponsor shall ..."
> > >  b) "All voting members of the Sponsor shall ..."
> > >
> > > However, I have noticed that this leaves out WG and TAG Vice Chairs,
> > > who are not members of the Sponsor, but can vote (under the newly
> > > modified rules) and are confirmed by the sponsor.
> > >
> > > It turns out that there is no central place that lists all the persons
> > > that are to be confirmed by the Sponsor.
> > >
> > > So 2 questions:
> > >  1) Should non-voting members of the Sponsor be required to file
> > > letters of affiliation including the statement regarding how to vote?
> > >  2) Should we add a list of the persons to be confirmed by the Sponsor?
> > >
> > > James Gilb
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.