Re: [802SEC] Proposed rule changes for July meeting
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.
Geoffrey O. Thompson
Mountain View, CA 94043
On 67//12 10:24 AM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
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
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
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:
b) "All voting members of the Sponsor and their alternates
On 57//12 5:15 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
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
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?
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.