Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I vote approve.
My approval is based on my prior comments. However I would encourage folks not to confuse the interpretation with the rules change. Issues such are the rate at which membership rolls off needs to be fixed, and can probably be fixed during the membership P&P revision (if we can reach agreement). This interpretation is just a stop gap to formalize what is current practice and intent to WG such as 802.20 since it is not clearly expressed in the current rules. The interpretation can’t effect change in the rules. The changes need to come through the P&P revision.
Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman -----Original Message-----
Dear SEC,
----- 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:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|