Re: [802SEC] +++ SEC Rules Change Letter Ballot +++ BallotonWG electronic voting
Tony,
I would be delighted to with the wording of your first paragraph. I
think it is an improvement over the current text as it suggests the
greater richness of options that in fact exist and are practiced by a
wise chair.
wlq
Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> Bill -
>
> My point was that it is difficult to be usefully more specific than the
> existing text without running into the problem of deciding when you're
> done. I would personally be happy with my first para, but then it isn't
> clear to me that it is really much of an improvement on the existing
> wording, as it is simply an expansion of what the existing wording
> allows/implies.
>
> Actually, there is a major difference between my wording and yours - mine,
> like the existing text, keeps the possibility that the Chair can decide a
> procedural issue without a motion. As Howard pointed out a while back in
> this thread, there are (hopefully infrequent) occasions when that kind of
> silver bullet might be necessary.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 14:14 10/06/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> >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
>
> Regards,
> Tony