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.