Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group Motion
Pat,
Can you give a little more info on the situation where this became
necessary. I find it very hard to believe that the EC would modify and
then pass a motion over the objections of the WG chair who introduced
it.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]
On Behalf Of Rigsbee, Everett O
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:18 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
Motion
This rule should probably apply equally to any directed positions as
well, since the WG Chair is bound to reflect the intent of the WG.
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
Cell: (425) 417-1022
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:45 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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.
----------
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.