RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE LETTER BALLOT
The way I read the operating rules (5.1.4.1), the WG Chair decides if
something is procedural or technical, and is authorized to decide procedural
items autocratically (no motion required). Most Working Groups also vote
some procedural items using Roberts Rules, but that is at the discretion of
the Chair or as defined in the WG Operating Rules. Adding the proposed text
is certainly outside the scope of explicitly defining WG electronic
balloting, and I would be adverse to sliding in a limitation on the Chair's
powers or forcing changes in the operation of WGs.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: rdlove@us.ibm.com [mailto:rdlove@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 5:42 AM
To: Tony Jeffree
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE
LETTER BALLOT
Tony, I suggested putting that sentence in to make it clear that a 50%
threshold
was needed for other motions. I would not be adverse to state that number
explicitly and continue to soft peddle Robert's Rules. (It is mentioned
somewhere that in the absence of other rules of ours to the contrary, we
generally follow Robert's Rules. I don't recall where and don't have the
time
now to locate the reference.)
Best regards.
Robert D. Love
Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
IBM
500 Park Offices Phone: 919 543-2746
P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656 Fax: 419 715-0359
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA E-Mail: rdlove@us.ibm.com
Tony Jeffree <tony@jeffree.co.uk> on 10/08/99 01:53:21 AM
To: Robert Love/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE
LETTER BALLOT
At 15:07 07/10/99 -0400, rdlove@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>I wholeheartedly agree with Bob's words. I would additionally add one
>additional paragraph that explicitly states that "Voting on non-technical
issues
>is governed by Robert's Rules of order". You may or may not want to put
that
>paragraph following Bob's words, or where it is indicated that the chair
decides
>which issues are technical and which are not.
>
An observation.
I know that some working groups enjoy the adversarial atmosphere that can
be generated by clever manipulation of meetings and the over-use of
procedural mechanisms such as are embodied in Robert's Rules. Historically,
802.1 has not been one of those working groups; our operational approach
has been to attempt to resolve issues rather than to invoke procedures. If
there is an issue, taking a vote or indulging in procedural devices will
not make it go away, so it is a smart move to resolve the issue first. The
vote then becomes the formal confirmation, rather thatn the attempted means
of achieving resolution. Consequently, in the time I have been attending
802.1 meetings (since 1984), I cannot recall any occasion where it was
either desirable or necessary to invoke Roberts Rules. For these reasons,
while I would in no way object to other working groups making use of RR as
they see fit, I would be very concerned if Robert's Rules were enshrined in
the operating rules of 802 as the basis for making decisions in WG meetings.
Regards,
Tony