Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Steve, et al,
I agree with Steve that Roberts has been depricated to a "guide" and that
our P&P is lacking in explicit guidance in this area.
I also (with all due respect to Paul) do not agree with Bob that Paul has
the unilateral authority to devine and rule what our intent was in such
matters.
Since we are going to be constrained in our ablity to ammend our P&P by
AudCom restrictions going forward (as well as our own difficulty in making
P&P changes), I think that this issue should be decided by the EC (an
interpretation of what our intent was when we enacted the "75% approval
exception," however ambibuous it may be, in our current P&P).
Furthermore, in Tony's instant situation, I believe that we owe him the
courtesy of a prompt interpretation so that he is sure of what is required
of him in November and has a firm and supportable position in preparation
for the next round of EC elections in March 2008.
I therefore vigorously support Tony's request for a review and
interpretation of this matter at the opening EC meeting of the Nvember
plenary, to be voted and minuted in the minutes of the opening EC meeting.
(If Tony does need a 75% approval vote of 802.1 members to run for another
term, I think he needs to get that at the November plenary in preparation
for March.) I believe that this is important enough that even if it takes us
an hour, and requires that we defer some opening reports or other
perfunctories, we should allow the required time to provide Tony with a
clean and unambigous interpretation that he can rely upon.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Shellhammer, Steve
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:04 PM
> To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
> Bob,
>
> Interesting. Where in the 802 P&P is all this covered? I know
> that Roberts Rules, which govern Parliamentary organizations, is a
> recommended guide in our P&P, but is not a governing document
> since some
> people thought it best not to have it so.
>
> So I believe we are governed by our P&P, and other governing
> documents. The P&P lays out what is the role of the chair and what is
> the role of the EC. I have not seen anything in our P&P that
> states who
> interprets the P&P, in cases where interpretation is not self evident.
>
> So as far as I can tell we are ruled by the P&P and the P&P does
> not cover this issue. Now, we might want to add this to our P&P and
> then we can decide whether the Chair makes interpretations or the EC.
> Matt I would recommend that we initiate such a P&P change. I would
> request that we put this topic on the Sunday night rules meeting. I
> guess I should show up now that I keep suggesting items for the agenda
> :)
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara
> (boohara)
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:38 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
> John,
>
> The EC is not a democracy. It is a parliamentary society. The chair
> has very broad powers, including the ability to decide
> whether something
> is within the scope of our policies and procedures, how those policies
> and procedures are to be applied, and to decide how any ambiguities in
> the policies and procedures are to be reconciled. Once the chair has
> rendered a decision on any matter, the members of the EC have
> the right
> to challenge that decision. Until that point, there is no decision to
> be challenged.
>
> In addition, there is no procedure for an "interpretation request" to
> force a decision on the chair (or the EC) in our policies and
> procedures. If there is perceived ambiguity in the policies and
> procedures, there is a procedure specified for a member of the EC to
> attempt to modify those policies and procedures. The policies and
> procedures are not a standard, for which the SA has an interpretation
> request procedure defined. The SA's interpretation request procedure
> does not apply to the bylaws of the SA, only the standards developed
> under it.
>
> -Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 2:27 AM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
> If we have an established precedence for doing such, I will not object
> to continuing the practice, at least until such time as we formally
> address how we handle interpretation requests.
>
> On 10/30/2007 10:00 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> > I believe we have deferred to Paul for interpretations in the past.
> >
> > I believe Bob O'Hara's info summarizes Robert's very well,
> and you can
> > always appeal Paul's decision.
> >
> > 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 J Lemon
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:23 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
> >
> > I'm not so sure that this an interpretation of "the rules",
> depending
> > upon what "the rules" means. Again, I don't care enough to research
> this
> > myself :-) . In any case, as much as I have the utmost respect for
> Paul,
> > I'm not sure I would like to establish such a precedent for
> all time,
> > and would prefer to reserve the right of interpretation for the EC
> body.
> > But I don't care so much that I would make a stink about it.
> >
> > jl
> >
> > On 10/30/2007 2:10 PM, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> >
> >> Robert's Rules does say that the chair determines how the rules are
> >> interpreted, by making a decision.
> >>
> >> "By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him the
> >> authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of
> >> parliamentary law." (RROR Ch VIII, section 24)
> >>
> >> If the body disagrees, there is a motion to appeal from
> the decision
> >>
> > of
> >
> >> the chair. This motion takes the decision from the chair
> and allows
> >>
> > it
> >
> >> to be made by the body.
> >>
> >> "But any two members have the right to Appeal from his decision on
> >>
> > such
> >
> >> a question. By one member making (or "taking") the appeal
> and another
> >> seconding it, the question is taken from the chair and
> vested in the
> >> assembly for final decision." (ibid)
> >>
> >>
> >> -Bob
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >> [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of J Lemon
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:34 AM
> >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.