Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: +++ SEC Rules Change Ballot

Paul, Bill, it is clear from the email like the one attached that the
proposed motion really requires some modification to be approved.  If this
were a meeting there would be a call for ammendments.  If that is the
process we need let me state:

I am making a friendly ammendment to change the motion.

Is that what's needed?  Whose at the helm to manage the process that will
allow pretty good motions to get cleaned up so that we can do work

I would like to see the electronic process work.  It will only do so if
there is the equivalent of a discussion period before voting on fixed
motions of this sort.  That process requires that the mover is reading the
comments and will accept or reject them.  This motion has had the problem
that there is nobody stepping up to that task.

Looking at the overall process I propose that we all look at the following
general process.
     1) Motions get posted as "straw-men" with a request for changes
necessary to support them.
     2) The mover accepts, rejects, or modifies each proposed change.
     3) When positions become relatively fixed (perhaps a two week review
is in order) then a fixed motion goes out for ballot.
     4) Subsequent change suggestions may still be accepted by the mover
(and seconder) in which case the revised motion is posted.
     5) If revisions are made a new revised closing date is posted (if
necessary).  All previous votes stand unless the voter sends in a change of

Best regards.

Robert D. Love
Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
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:

Bob Heile <> on 01/07/2000 10:59:46 AM

Sent by:

Subject:  Re: +++ SEC Rules Change Ballot

a)   I agree with Bob Love's comments of 11/18, namely---

I have one proposed minor change:

Change the line:

Working Group motions and votes in between 802 Plenary meetings are at the
discretion of the Working Group Chair


Working Group motions and votes in between Working Group (strikethrough:
802 Plenary) meetings are at the discretion of the Working Group Chair.

I don't think the intent of the sentence was to state that motions and
votes at interim Working Group meetings are at the discretion of the chair.

b)   Also, I agree with Roger's amended comments, namely---

(1)change first sentence:

"There is a requirement for the recirculation ballot process. For guidance
on this process see Section Resolution of comments, objections,
and negative votes in the IEEE Standards Operating Manual."


'Recirculation ballots are to be handled in accordance with the principles
of Section ("Resolution of comments, objections, and negative
votes") of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual.'

(2) I don't like the last sentence of:

"Votes at Working Group interim meetings are conducted according to normal
Working Group voting procedures. Examples include but are not limited to
voice votes, raise hand votes and roll call votes. A vote is carried by by
a 75% approval of the sum of those members voting "Approve" and "Do Not
Approve". A quorum of 50% of the Working Group voting membership is
required to be in attendance at Working Group interim meetings."

It says that the meeting requires a quorum; this seems to imply that a
meeting without a quorum is out of order. I suggest that the sentence read:

"The vote is not binding unless a quorum of at least 50% of the Working
Group voting membership is in attendance."

Bob Heile
GTE Technology Organization
Chair IEEE 802.15
Phone: 781-466-2057
Fax:    781-466-2575
Pager: 800-759-8888  PIN 1109355