][Thread Next][Date Index
Re: Tentative agenda for Ides of March Meeting...
I am a newcomer to IEEE standards process, but I believe that this
motion would be out of
order in ANSI processes. The rules for required majorities are decided by
governing policies and procedures. If we do not have a policy and
that requires a supermajority vote on something, then I believe a
majority is all
that should be required. For example, suppose a majority passes this
Then we subsequently take up a motion M2 regarding base documents, which
by a majority but not a supermajority. I believe that that later
voteM2 would be
sustained, even though it contradicts the earlier vote on M1,
because the "the body is sovereign" meaning it can change its mind.
The body cannot make a motion that removes a power inherent in the body,
because a later successful motion could always restore the power.
Therefore ordinary motions to remove a power are out of order.
Likewise a motion to never review a decision or never touch a topic
are out of order.
(A motion to revise our policies and procedures would be different,
but there are typically higher hurdles to overcome for such motions.)
If we have any parliamentarians in our midst, I suggest that they
question prior to the meeting. Anyway, I oppose the motion.
Markstein, Peter wrote:
I'd like to suggest that item 9 (motion to require 2/3 majority) be
taken up after item 11, the motion to adopt the 2006-03-07 draft, lest
that motion to accept the Mar.7 draft be defeated by failure to achieve
a 2/3 majority.
From: stds-754@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-754@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:04 PM
Subject: Tentative agenda for Ides of March Meeting...
may be found at http://nonabelian.com/754/agenda.
If you would like add to the agenda, please let me know. - Dan