Hi
Folks,
I have heard it
suggested to me that a valid course of action is to leave the current rules on
this matter in the state of being “ambiguous or doubtful” and let each chair
interpret it for his/her self. I do not believe this is a valid course
of action, and felt I should review the background of this motion. Most
of this is taken from the first e-mail I sent on this topic.
To quote from Article
IX of Robert’s Rules (10th edition):
“If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with
other bylaws. The interpretations should be in accordance with the
intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can
be determined. Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear
or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is
required to decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression
should be amended as soon as practicable.”
I am of the opinion
that our “bylaws” (the LMSC P&P) are in fact “ambiguous or doubtful”
regarding the process of obtaining membership at the start up of a working
group. In particular we have from section 5.1.3.1 titled
“Establishment”:
“All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working Group become
members of the Working Group.”
On the other hand we
have from section 5.1.3.2 titled “Retention”:
“Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four
Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working Group or
task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary
meetings.”
As was so well
explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis) in an earlier e-mail,
these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with one another. Setting
aside for a moment the question of whether or not we intended “meeting” or
“session” in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these
two rules seem to conflict with one another. Even taking the liberal
view that meeting means session, after the first session the general rules
would kick in and all “members” would seem to lose their membership in the WG
once the initial meeting was completed.
All this said, we
already have a P&P change ballot which should “fix” this problem by the
end of the July meeting. My concern is for the beginning of the July
meeting. Given what happened in March to 802.20, I would like to have a
clearer interpretation of these “bylaws” so that we don’t have a repeat of the
last meeting. As indicated by Robert’s Rules, an interpretation can be
established by majority vote. More importantly it “MUST” be
interpreted one the problem is identified. If possible, it should be
interpreted to be “in harmony” with other bylaws and “in accordance with the
intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined”.
The point here is that it may not be possible to interpret a rule in harmony
with the other rules, or determine the exact intent 802 had when they adopted
these rules. However, we still MUST interpret the rules, and then amend
them as soon as possible. Leaving it ambiguous for each Chair to
interpret independently given that we know a problem exist is not permissible
by my reading of Robert’s Rules.
Hopefully this was
helpful.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
Vice Chair,
IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T Labs
- Shannon Laboratory
Room B255,
Building 103
180 Park
Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park,
NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1
(973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973)
360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original
Message-----
From: Paul
Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:23
PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++
Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership
interpretation
Dear SEC,
This is a 15 day SEC email
ballot on a Motion to Interpret the LMSC P&P rule on Working Group
Initial Membership as moved by Mat Sherman and seconded by Geoff
Thompson.
The email ballot opens on Monday April 14, 2003 9PM EDT and
closes Thursday April 29, 2003 9PM EDT.
Please direct your responses to
the SEC reflector with a CC directly to me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).
Regards,
--Paul
Nikolich
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday,
April 14, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: Motion
for WG Initial membership interpretation
Paul,
I wish to formally make a motion
concerning the interpretation of the current initial membership rules.
The motion I would like to make is as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Motion that until the P&P
revision titled "WG membership" being balloted starting March 27th, 2003 is
completed (estimated to occur at the end of the July 2003 IEEE 802 Plenary
meeting) the line in the LMSC P&P section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention"
reading:
’Membership is retained by participating in at least two of
the last four Plenary session meetings.’
Should be interpreted as
reading:
’Membership is retained by participating in at least two of
the last four Plenary sessions. (An individual who attains membership by
participation and attendance at the first meeting of a new Working Group is
assumed to have the right to retain that membership by the granting of credit
for 'full virtual attendance' at the plenary session that would be immediately
previous to the first working group plenary session.)’”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Thompson helped develop this
motion, and has agreed to second it. Note that based on recent
discussions it is somewhat different than the motion I said I would first make
on the reflector. This motion maximally protects the voting rights of
initial members by ensuring retention of their rights through the first 4
plenary sessions. We believe this is the motion that has the greatest
chance of success. If this fails, we may want make a second motion which
we would want to complete before the end of the upcoming wireless interim
session. Since the motion is reasonably concise we would prefer a 15 day
ballot period for this interpretation to allow time for a second round if
needed.
Regards,
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE
802
Technology
Consultant
Communications Technology
Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon
Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ
07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com