Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Bob,
You are correct I only looked at the SA bylaws and ops manual.
I think that is the highest I have ever looked. (WG, EC, SA). I guess
soon I will have to read the US constitution. :)
It seems that you are correct that the IEEE bylaws state that we
follow RROR. So I am good with that. I just want to make sure we have
a well defined process so we are all on the same page.
So I guess this is Paul's problem. :) He makes rulings on
interpretations of the P&P and we keep and eye on him.
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 5:42 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Steve,
You obviously didn't look at the other references. There is a reason
all of them require the use of RROR. Let me cite one a bit higher in
precedence, the IEEE Bylaws, where it says:
"Parliamentary Procedures. Robert's Rules of Order (latest revision)
shall be used to conduct business at meetings of the IEEE Board of
Directors, Executive Committee, Major Boards, Standing Committees and
other organizational units of the IEEE unless other rules of procedure
are specified in the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New
York, the IEEE Certificate of Incorporation, the IEEE Constitution,
these Bylaws, the IEEE Policies, resolutions of the IEEE Board of
Directors, or the applicable governing documents of those organizational
units provided such organizational documents are not in conflict with
any of the foregoing."
Since our P&P do not specify "other rules of procedure" that are not in
conflict with the IEEE Bylaws, i.e., its requirement to use RROR, this
requirement is binding on the LMSC and the EC.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 5:15 PM
To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Bob,
Actually I think I understand but respectfully disagree.
The SA Bylaws says "Except as otherwise specified in these
bylaws, meetings of the IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be run in
accordance with the parliamentary procedures of Robert's Rules of Order
(latest edition)."
We of course are not talking about how to run Standards Board
meetings but 802 EC meetings. So there are no rules of precedence
stating that EC or for that matter WG meetings are to be run by Roberts
Rules. Some WGs like 802.11 do have Roberts in their P&P. If we want
that we of course could put Roberts in the 802 P&P, but it seems that
some people are opposed to that idea.
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 4:33 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Steve,
I am afraid that you are just not grasping the concept here. There is
no need for us to restate in our P&P what is already in a document that
supersedes our P&P. In fact, it is quite dangerous and inefficient to
do so. If we were to take that path, wouldn't we want to restate
everything that is in all of the documents of higher precedence than our
own P&P, up to and including the NY State Corporation Law? Given all
those documents of higher precedence, don't you think we would need to
update our own P&P more than once each year to stay in sync with them?
The whole point of referencing those other document is specifically so
we DON'T have to reproduce them in our P&P.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:02 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Bob,
If we are not a democracy then we should stop voting on issues
and stop debating issues and just let the chair decide everything. :)
Why are we trying to come to a consensus on an issue if the EC does not
decide the issue?
If we want the chair to rule on interpretations of the P&P we
should put that in the P&P. If we want the EC to rule on
interpretations of the P&P we should put that in the P&P. However, I do
not recommend we leave it unspecified. Of course it does afford us the
opportunity to have these exciting discussions. :)
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 3:27 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Carl,
I will point it out once more. The LMSC and EC is not a democracy.
Much as members of the EC want to "interpret" the policies and
procedures, they have no authority to do so. If you believe this is not
correct, please cite your authority for that position. Here are my
citations of authority for the position I have stated.
Even though it has been relegated to "guide" status in our own P&P, the
following documents of higher precedence supersede our own P&P,
requiring the use of Robert's Rules of Order (RROR) for parliamentary
procedure. These override our own P&P in this matter.
IEEE Bylaws, Section I-300, clause 1
IEEE-SA Operations Manual, clause 4.3, 4.4.4
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, clause 5.1
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, clause 4.1.1, 5.8
IEEE Computer Society Bylaws, Article 3 section 9
Having now established that RROR is definitive on the question of how
parliamentary procedure is to be handled in the LMSC and EC, RROR has
this to say about the duties of the presiding officer:
"8) To decide all questions of order (23), subject to appeal (24) ..."
(RROR Chap XV, section 47)
Please note that this says "all questions of order", not some, not only
those that folks feel comfortable leaving to the chair, but ALL
questions of order.
In section 23, the following is included in the list of items considered
to be valid subjects of a point of order:
"(a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or
constitution) of the organization or assembly," (RROR Chap VIII,
section 23, under "Further rules and explanation")
So, it is quite clear in RROR that the chair is given the power and the
duty to rule on interpretations of the bylaws and where they apply. In
the situation that has precipitated this email thread, this means that
the chair will be the one to decide if the current term limit text in
our P&P means that a chair must have the 75%-approved motion of their
working group in order to run for election after four terms or after
something greater than four terms.
Absent such a decision from the chair, I would suggest it is prudent for
those that have served four terms and intend to run for reelection in
March to have their working groups entertain a motion allowing them to
do so during this plenary.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Carl R. Stevenson
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:31 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 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.
----------
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.