Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Bob-
Good point.
We should stipulate that it has to be a vote by count.
For my case, (without regard to whether or not I can vote in the EC) I
would not support the continuation of a chair who brought in a vote by
acclamation in alleged satisfaction of this criteria.
Geoff
At 05:20 AM 11/11/2007 , Bob Heile wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, where does a vote by acclimation (or would it be
>unanimous consent in this case) fit into the scheme of things?
>
>
>
>
>At 02:32 PM 11/10/2007 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>Tony/Colleagues-
>>
>>I agree with Tony that the language needs to be tightened up.
>>
>>While I hesitate to have "special" voting rules instead of just referring
>>to one of our existing procedures, I believe there is a fatal flaw in
>>what Tony has proposed.
>>
>>Our original intention was to have term limits be the default situation.
>>The 75% vote was intended to allow things to be overridden by a highly
>>affirmative action (a principle which I support). I believe Tony's
>>proposal waters that down significantly in its current proposed form.
>>
>>The problem of 75% of Y/(Y+N) is that those not voting are weight in the
>>affirmative. In this particular case (a) the bias is in the opposite of
>>our alleged default and (b) it takes a lot of courage to stick your hand
>>up to say you hate the current chair (hard enough to brash American,
>>effectively impossible for some other cultures).
>>
>>Therefore, I propose that the method of vote should be (from Tony's list
>>below):
>> > - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>
>>
>>I acknowledge that does not solve the problem completely, voters can
>>still abstain by leaving the room. This could be solved (perhaps) by
>>instead using:
>> > - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or
>> not).
>>
>>
>>There is a problem with too though. Many (most?) WGs don't have anything
>>near 100% of the voting members show up at a plenary. This effectively
>>raises the bar significantly (too far in my opinion). We could use 50% of
>>the voting membership on a vote taken at the plenary but that has a
>>potential unevenness problem between WGs.
>>
>>Therefore, my choice remains:
>> > - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>
>>
>>
>>Appropriate fruit for discussion during a P&P meeting
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>
>>At 05:34 AM 11/8/2007 , Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>Following the interesting discussion on the email exploder on this topic,
>>I decided to take a shot at hacking the P&P text into something rather
>>more watertight and hopefully rather closer to what we intended to say in
>>the first place. As with all of these things, the closer you look at the
>>existing text the more problems come out of the woodwork. So in addition
>>to the initial problem of interpreting the number of years vs number of
>>terms of office ambiguity, I came across the following problems:
>>
>>1) Although the existing text specifies when terms of office come to an
>>end, it only indirectly specifies what happens next.
>>
>>2) The wording around the 10-year rule is sufficiently ambiguous that it
>>could be interpreted as requiring someone that has spent 10 years as Vice
>>Chair to undergo the 75% vote before standing for Chair (and vice versa).
>>I know Bob Grow disagrees with me on this interpretation, but suffice it
>>to say that if I wrote something similar in a draft standard I would
>>expect to get comments requiring the ambiguity to be removed.
>>
>>3) The text doesn't make it clear what question the WG should vote on in
>>cases where the 75% approval is required. I.e., it says that something
>>needs to be approved by 75%, but not what that something is.
>>
>>4) (this is probably the worst of the lot, and in my view, makes it
>>essential that we have a clear interpretation next week) The wording
>>around the 75% vote does not specify what "a 75% vote of the WG" means.
>>Hence, it is open to at least the following interpretations, some of
>>which might be terribly difficult to achieve:
>>
>>- 75% of the people in the room (members and observers).
>>
>>- 75% of the participants in the WG (voting members and observers,
>>whether in the room or not).
>>
>>- 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or not).
>>
>>- 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>
>>- Same as a technical vote (75% of those voting members voting Approve
>>and Disapprove).
>>
>>- Impossible to determine, as a WG is a single entity, so a 75% of it
>>isn't a meaningful concept.
>>
>>- Some other interpretation that I haven't thought of.
>>
>>I have attached a marked-up version of the relevant sections that I
>>believe fixes the problems that I have identified. My intention would be
>>to use this as the basis for a rules change ballot.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>----------
>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
>
>Bob Heile, Ph.D
>Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
>Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
>11 Louis Road
>Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
>Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
>email: bheile@ieee.org
>
>----------
>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.