Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group Motion
Bob -
I agree with you here - it seems to me that the solution is a bad fit for
the problem.
If there is a real need to protect PARs from miscellaneous damage by the
SEC, then maybe a specific rule that gives the WG Chair the perogative to
withdraw a PAR motion, but certainly not an unbounded rule.
Regards,
Tony
At 23:44 18/02/2005, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>Pat,
>
>I don't recall the incident you described. I may not have been involved
>at this level at the time. I agree that those external to the debate
>might interpret and react to the situation as you describe. However,
>you also describe a perfectly good method (tabling) to deal with this
>without requiring the personal prerogative for the WG chair.
>
> -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
>On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:37 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
>Motion
>
>
>Bob,
>
>The provision didn't get added to the P&P lightly. There has been at
>least one case in the past where a WG chair clearly voiced that the
>amendment made to a PAR would be objectional to the WG and the PAR was
>approved anyway. It happened quite a few years ago. At a later meeting a
>PAR modification was done that resolved the issue so one might argue
>there was no harm done in the end but there was a lot of heat created
>that could have been avoided. The chair and the WG would have preferred
>to not have the PAR sent forward that way at all.
>
>If we don't have that rule, the WG chair could try a motion to table
>(postpone to an undefined time). The political/PR considerations of
>voting down a PAR that is close but needs tweaking are undesireable.
>Those external to the decision usually see such a vote as a vote against
>the concept in total. That it is a vote against the specific details of
>the motion rather than against the work going forward is a message that
>gets lost.
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
>Sent: Friday, 18 February, 2005 2:38 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
>Motion
>
>
>Pat,
>
>The problem I have with the existing and proposed text is that it is
>unbounded. It applies to all motions brought by the WG chair on behalf
>of the WG. I might be inclined to support a change that did not include
>deleting the entire section, if the change enumerated a specific, short
>list of topics for which motions could be withdrawn by the WG chair
>after discussion had begun.
>
>PARs I can see on this list, though I would prefer that the EC simply
>disapprove the motion, if it is inclined to make changes that might be
>objectionable to the WG. I think an even better solution is for the WG
>chair to speak up and make it known that they think the EC is changing a
>WG's motion in such a way that the WG did not consider, would find
>objectionable, or should be able to review. The EC should then be
>easily convinced that the motion should be defeated. The WG chair then
>has the opportunity to take the EC positions back to the WG for further
>action.
>
>I just don't see the EC passing an amended motion over the objection of
>the WG chair that brought the original motion. Do we really need this
>type of personal prerogative?
>
>I was not arguing that our current P&P give us the right to change
>procedure. As it is currently constructed, it clearly does give us that
>right. I was arguing that it is the wrong thing to do and that it
>causes more problems than it solves. It also opens up all sorts of
>issues that would be out of bounds if RROR had precedence over our P&P
>on procedural matters and parliamentary procedure.
>
> -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
>On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:13 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
>Motion
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I am fully aware of what RROR says on withdrawing a motion. The
>suggested text gives the Working Group Chair a right for a certain class
>of motion that goes beyond what is in Robert's Rules.
>
>Our P&P clause 1 has Robert's Rules below the LMSC P&P in precedence and
>clause 13 says:
>"On questions of parlimentary procedure not covered in these Procedures,
>Robert's Rules of Order (revised) may be used to expedite due process."
>
>Both of these indicate that we can have a rule that overrides the usual
>RROR procedure.
>
>Experience, especially on the matter of PAR approval has led some of us
>to feel that this measure is necessary for us. There isn't much point in
>giving a Working Group a project so altered that it doesn't wish to
>pursue it. I think that approval of an external communication (liaison
>statement, regulatory letter, etc.) might raise the same problem (maybe
>even more so as one can modify a PAR later but one can't unring the
>bell).
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
>Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
>Sent: Friday, 18 February, 2005 1:36 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
>Motion
>
>
>Pat,
>
>Sounds like there was some interesting discussion on the call!
>
>I think that we have to make a more general decision here, before we can
>craft some text. Is a motion, once made and seconded, the property of
>the mover? Robert's Rules say no. Once a motion is made and seconded,
>the motion belongs to the body. If a motion to amend is made and
>adopted that changes the original motion to one the mover of that
>original motion finds objectionable, the mover no longer has the right
>to remove the motion from consideration.
>
>The only way to change a motion brought to the EC on behalf of a WG is
>through a valid amendment. Once the motion is amended, the WG chair has
>no right to withdraw it. All the WG chair can do is argue against the
>amended motion, if it is now changed in such a way that the chair
>believes the WG would no longer support it.
>
>This is the same right all EC members have with respect to motions they
>find undesirable. Should the mover of any motion that is modified to
>become undesirable to them have the right to remove the modified motion
>from consideration? I think not. Does it matter how a motion came to
>be made on the floor of an EC meeting? I think not.
>
>This is the trouble that comes up when we cast aside well known, tested
>methods for conducting meetings, as we have with RROR.
>
>I would say that the correct revision to the P&P would be to delete the
>section, in its entirety.
>
> -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
>On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:13 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
>Motion
>
>
>At the P&P ballot resolution meeting, we found that the text in 7.1.5.1
>item 8 regarding deferral of action on a Working Group's motion is
>ambiguous. We felt we needed a wider discussion on what the text should
>mean before we could write acceptable text. Since this is rather long, I
>will put the text for my suggested resolution in second message so
>responders can focus on that.
>
>7.1.5.1 item 8 in our current P&P
>If the Executive Committee so modifies a Working Group's motion that the
>Working Group Chair believes the Working Group membership may no longer
>support the revised motion then the Working Group should be given the
>opportunity to reconsider what action it wishes to take and present it
>to the Executive Committee at the next Executive Committee meeting. This
>action can be accomplished by a Privileged Non-debatable "Request To
>Defer Action" made by the affected Working Group Chair which will
>automatically cause all action on the motion to be deferred until the
>end of the next regular Executive Committee meeting.
>
>THE AMBIGUITY:
>
>Some of the text (e.g. "Privileged Non-debatable "Request") seems to
>imply that this is describing a motion made by the Working Group Chair
>which needs an affirmative vote by the EC to take effect.
>
>Some of the text (e.g. "the Working Group should be given the
>opportunity to reconsider..." and "will automaticallly cause all action
>on the motion to be deferred") seems to imply that this is describing a
>unilateral action that the Working Group Chair can make to withdraw the
>motion.
>
>In the former case, this is describing a motion to postpone (i.e. a
>motion to table) by the Working Group Chair and a special rule isn't
>required. (A motion to postpone isn't privileged but the use of
>privileged here is incorrect; see below.) One could have a bit of
>informative text suggesting a motion to postpone but that seems entirely
>unnecessary to me.
>
>In the latter case, the text should make the unilateral nature of the
>action clear. It was also pointed out that there is no definition of a
>"working group's motion". The text for this will be in the other email.
>
>Background: A couple of us on the call believe that the latter is what
>was intended when the text was originally written. A specific concern
>that caused the text to be written was amendment of a PAR by the
>Executive Committee. We wanted to give the chair the ability to take the
>PAR back to the Working Group for action if the PAR was altered to the
>point that the Working Group chair was concerned that the Working Group
>might not be willing to pursue the work.
>
>The use of "Privileged" here is incorrect in any case. In parlimentary
>procedure, a "privileged" only applies to motions that don't relate to
>the motion currently being cosidered but take precedence over it despite
>that. A motion about the current motion is therefore never a privileged
>motion - it doesn't need privilege.
>
>P.S. This text is not relevant to the topic of 7.1.5.1 which is
>generally about limiting the length of EC meetings. It should be moved
>someplace else - perhaps with the voting rules.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This
>list is maintained by Listserv.
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.