Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P



All:

Voting on an interpretation works for me as long as it is coupled with clarifying the inerpretation that we come up with in the P&P by changing the wording.

Arnie

-------------- Original message from J Lemon <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>: -------------- 


> Unless Roberts really says such (I don't care enough to research whether 
> it does), I believe that we should handle interpretations the same way 
> our WGs handle interpretations: vote on a proposed interpretation. 
> 
> On 10/29/2007 6:25 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote: 
> > I have always held that the Chair has final say on P&P interpretations. 
> > I believe that is per Roberts rather than the rules, but I'm pretty tied 
> > up and haven't made time to look it up... 
> > 
> > Mat 
> > 
> > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
> > Engineering Fellow 
> > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS) 
> > Office: +1 973.633.6344 
> > Cell: +1 973.229.9520 
> > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree 
> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:31 PM 
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P 
> > 
> > Steve - 
> > 
> > That question (how do we agree on an interpretation) was also at the 
> > back of my mind. I would be fascinated to know what the answer is (or 
> > even if there is one!). 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Tony 
> > 
> > At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote: 
> > 
> >> Tony, 
> >> 
> >> Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are 
> >> vague. 
> >> 
> >> I was not around when the phrase "greater than 8 years" was 
> >> introduced in the P&P so I can't speak to the intent. Cleary there are 
> >> (at least) two possible interpretations of "greater than 8 years," 
> >> 
> >> 1. Eight years plus one day 
> >> 2. Nine years 
> >> 
> >> Clearly the safest interpretation is #1. 
> >> 
> >> I think we need to be a little more careful in writing our 
> >> 
> > rules 
> > 
> >> going forward so less interpretation of vague statements is necessary. 
> >> 
> >> Mat, do we have a method of agreeing on interpretation of 
> >> 
> > vague 
> > 
> >> rules? I know that sounds silly but Tony asked a good question and I 
> >> don't know how the EC answers such a question. Is it based on EC 
> >> 
> > member 
> > 
> >> consensus? That seems to be what we are doing. Maybe that is the best 
> >> way. Does Paul make an interpretation? Does Mat? It seems the best 
> >> method is some form of consensus of the EC. We are kind of a special 
> >> group since we write the rules and also interpret the rules. We are 
> >> both the Legislature and the Judicial system. :) 
> >> 
> >> Regards, 
> >> Steve 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> >> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree 
> >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:00 AM 
> >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> >> Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P 
> >> 
> >> I have a question for clarification of the current P&P with regard to 
> >> the wording in 7.2.2. It states: 
> >> 
> >> "An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given WG 
> >> for a total of more than 
> >> eight years in that office may not run for election to that office 
> >> again, unless the question of 
> >> allowing that individual to run for election again is approved by a 
> >> 75% vote of the WG one 
> >> plenary in advance of that election." 
> >> 
> >> I am now in my 8th year as 802.1 Chair, having first been appointed 
> >> Chair at the end of the March 2000 Plenary session. So when the 
> >> elections are run in March 2008, I will have been Chair for not quite 
> >> 8 years, as the appointment occurs at the end of the session (see 
> >> 7.1.2). I therefore interpret the above as meaning that I don't need 
> >> a 75% approval vote of my WG in November to allow me to run for 
> >> re-election in March. Is my interpretation correct? 
> >> 
> >> 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. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> ---------- 
> 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.