Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ Ballot onWG electronic voting
Tony,
While I may be a fool, it seems to me that the text of your first
paragraph, excluding the the first 5 words ("I believe that in
practice"), is essentially equivalent to what I suggest in my last
paragraph and the use of either would eliminate my problem with the
current text of the section. A more detailed description is neither
needed nor desirable.
wlq
Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> Bill -
>
> I believe that in practice, WG chairs make rulings as to what is to be
> treated as a procedural motion, and what is to be treated as a technical
> motion, and (where it is apparent that there is a simple procedural
> decision to be made, that doesn't need a motion) may also decide make other
> procedural decisions without the need for a motion.
>
> Also, in practice, a wise chair has a pretty clear idea of where the
> borderline needs to be; otherwise he/she rapidly ceases to be chair (wise
> or otherwise - pun intended).
>
> Attempting to capture that set of ideas, in an unambiguous way, in a way
> that we all agree to, and in less words than the works of Shakespeare, is
> likely to be a non-terminating process; I am therefore pretty confident
> that the existing words in that area of the rules will remain unscathed at
> least as long as it takes for us all to lose interest in the problem.
>
> I think this is a clear case where the old proverb regarding the difference
> in the relevance of rules to fools & wise men seems to apply.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 12:18 10/06/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
>
> >Howard,
> >
> >Thanks for the response. As a WG Chair, such an interpretation is quite
> >reasonable and needed for running the WG.
> >
> >However, I was approaching the issue from the point of view of a proposed
> >rules change and I am trying to understand what the current and proposed
> >rules explicitly state and what they appear to me to imply.
> >
> >The text of section 5.1.4.1 implies to me that issues that come before a
> >WG are of only two types, procedural and technical. Hence, if an issue
> >is not technical, it is procedural. Since for example motions to
> >adjourn and motions to table are not technical, they must be procedural.
> > According to the text of section 5.1.4.1, the chair decides procedural
> >issues and can therefore decide motions to adjourn and motions to table.
> > I don't think so.
> >
> >Now I agree that the Chair must make some procedural decisions. This is
> >clear from Robert's Rules of Order.
> >
> >I think the problem is that the text of section 5.1.4.1 is too
> >simplistic. What I believe the section should be saying is something
> >more like that the Chair decides procedural issues, which includes
> >deciding whether a motion is procedural or technical, and that motions
> >are approved or rejected by vote of the WG.
> >
> >Your comments?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >wlq
> >
> >Howard Frazier wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > My interpretation of this rule is that the WG chair is empowered to decide
> > > procedural issues. In practice, the WG chair usually puts such matters to
> > > a vote, after declaring them to be procedural.
> > >
> > > A good chair refrains from exercising his or her authority to the
> > limit. You
> > > save your silver bullets for the day when the werewolf is on the loose and
> > > hungry.
> > >
> > > Howard
> > >
> > > Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> > >
> > > >All,
> > > >
> > > >In section 5.1.4.1 of the LMSC Rules, which is part of the text of this
> > > >proposed rules change, there is a statement that "The Chair of the
> > > >Working Group decides procedural issues". Is this correct?
> > > >
> > > >I was under the impression that the Chair decided whether a motion was
> > > >procedural or technical, but that the Working Group decided both
> > > >technical and procedural issues by vote.
> > > >
> > > >Am I misinformed or is this text wrong?
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >wlq
> > > >
> > > >Paul Nikolich wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Dear SEC members,
> > > >>
> > > >>Attached you will find the text for the SEC rules change letter
> > ballot on WG
> > > >>Electronic Voting. (Note this is a resend of the March 17, 2002 letter
> > > >>ballot notice with the start time revised to 4/1/02 because we did not
> > > >>officially approve it for distribution until last night. Other than
> > that it
> > > >>is unchanged).
> > > >>
> > > >>Scope: To permit voting by electronic means at the working group level.
> > > >>
> > > >>Purpose: To facilitate the WG consensus process.
> > > >>
> > > >>The ballot opens April 1, 2002 and closes June 8, 2002 12 midnight EDT
> > > >>(remember if you do not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE
> > > >>vote). Buzz, please ensure this gets sent to the 802-wide email list as
> > > >>well. WG chairs, if you haven't already done so, please invite your WG
> > > >>members to comment through you.
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >>--Paul Nikolich
> > > >>
> > > >>Chair, IEEE802 LAN/MAN Standards Project
> > > >>email: p.nikolich@ieee.org
> > > >>cell: 857.205.0050
> > > >>mail: 18 Bishops Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> Name:
> > MAR2002 rules change on wg electronic balloting.pdf
> > > >> MAR2002 rules change on wg electronic balloting.pdf Type: Adobe
> > Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> > > >> Encoding: base64
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
>
> Regards,
> Tony