Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Roger -
Absolutely. I can see no good reason to move away from that, other than to
clarify and reinforce what that actually means.
Regards,
Tony
At 16:26 07/09/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Tony,
>
>I agree 100%.
>
>I'd just like to add a note. You propose that the rules should be such:
>
>-That we only ever talk about one form of "Voting in meetings" - and
>that one form requires 75% approval to pass.
>
>The point I'd like to make is that this is exactly what the rules say
>and have always said (since I've been around).
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>On Sep 7, 2006, at 08:48 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
>>Mat -
>>
>>I vote Disapprove.
>>
>>Nits:
>>
>>There is something screwed up about the subclause numbering (there
>>are two instances of 7.2.4.3 and one of them precedes 7.2.4.2).
>>
>>Substantive issues:
>>
>>As Steve Shellhammer has pointed out, and as amplified in my
>>response to his comments, the whole issue of Technical vs
>>Procedural in this set of rules is somewhat screwed up.
>>
>>Firstly, it makes no sense at all to say that the Chair decides
>>procedural (sorry, non-technical) issues, and then to go on to say
>>that when the Chair decides to use the WG's help in determining a
>>procedural issue by taking a vote of the WG, that it should be done
>>in a particular way. For example, if I decide that an issue is
>>procedural (choosing the venue for the next interim, maybe), but
>>that I want the WG to assist me in that decision by running a straw
>>poll, I don't want the P&P to impose rules on how that straw poll
>>is conducted, and I absolutely DO NOT want that informal mechanism
>>suddenly to be subject to parliamentary procedure. That is just
>>plain nuts. Either an issue is procedural, and the Chair gets to
>>decide the outcome (including taking advice/help from the WG, if he/ she
>>feels it appropriate, and in any way that he/she may choose),
>>or it is not procedural, and the WG gets to vote, and with the
>>outcome subject to 75% approval. So introducing the concept of some
>>other kind of "non-technical motion" into the vocabulary,
>>surrounded with wooly words about them being subject to
>>parliamentary procedure, isn't helpful and simply allows us to
>>continue to get wrapped around this particular axle.
>>
>>Secondly, as I pointed out in response to Steve, the set of issues
>>that require a 75% approval certainly include drafts and PARs, but
>>is very much NOT restricted to those two items.
>>
>>So, what I would like to see an alternative approach along these
>>lines:
>>
>>- That we only ever talk about one form of "Voting in meetings" -
>>and that one form requires 75% approval to pass.
>>
>>- That the set of things that we absolutely require to be decided
>>by a WG vote (75% approval) gets clearly stated, along with the
>>principle that lies behind it, so that if we've missed anything
>>from the set then it is as clear as possible how the set would be
>>populated.
>>
>>- That the question of how the Chair might run a non-technical
>>"motion", or any other kind of procedure for that matter, in order
>>to assist in the determination of a procedural issue, doesn't get
>>discussed in the P&P at all, as it is all covered under the blanket
>>statement that "The Chair decides procedural issues".
>>
>>If I get time in the next few days I will propose some wording
>>changes.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>
>>At 04:16 04/09/2006, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>>>Dear EC members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot
>>>titled
>>>'WG Voting Procedures'. This ballot was approved at the Friday July
>>>21st, 2006 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the
>>>meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in
>>>the
>>>attached ballot document.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ballot Duration: 9/3/2006 - 10/3/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
>>>groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please direct any
>>>comments on this revision to the reflector, myself, and Al Petrick (
>>>apetrick@widefi.com) for collection. A ballot resolution
>>>teleconference
>>>will be scheduled for sometime prior to the November 2006 Plenary
>>>Session.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks & Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Mat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>>BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
>>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------
>>>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.