Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution+++ AudCom


Concerning the parliamentarian - We are in complete agreement concerning
the requirements to be a parliamentarian.  My point was I don't think
Bob would be willing to forgo his voting rights to be parliamentarian if
we change the P&P as described.

Concerning 'appointed positions' -  In your comments you made the
statement 'Ideally we would clarify the voting chairs as elected and
confirmed chairs.'  Other EC members requested that appointed members
(even prior to election / confirmation) can have voting rights.  I went
with that opinion for my proposed resolution, which is in conflict with
your statement.  I will happily reconsider it and go with the majority
at the Sunday meeting.  One additional point is I did not see a clear
recommendation out of your comments concerning text on 'appointed' and
'acting' positions.  I agree with you that what we have is confusing,
but don't see a clear resolution at the moment.  It would help if you
could provide a specific set of changes you desire.

Concerning having a description of Vice Chair positions - I agree with
your point, and will try and draft some text for Sunday based on inputs
Paul has provided me.

Concerning procedural vs technical - My opinion is that even if we are
99% procedural (which we probably are) we still need to allow for the 1%
that isn't procedural in our rules.  And once again, I make no claim
that my recommended resolution fully represents everyone's opinion.  It
is really just my opinion based on what I heard everyone say.  I don't
normally form a consensus opinion until the Sunday meeting since that's
our first opportunity for comment resolution. Perhaps in the future I'll
try and present everyone's desired changes as bracketed text. 

See you Sunday!


Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Engineering Fellow 
BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS) 
Office: +1 973.633.6344 
Cell: +1 973.229.9520 



-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Thaler [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:34 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA);
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed
Resolution+++ AudCom


By Robert's Rules of Order (Chpater XV Officers 47) a parlimentarian
doesn't vote even if the parlimentarian would otherwise be a member of
the body:
"A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same
duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality,
and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on
any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a
deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that
would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member
feels that he cannot properly forego these rights in order to serve as
parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the
presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his
position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion."
The parlimentarian's main role seems to be to sit next to the chair and
whisper in his ear when consultation on parlimentary proceedure is

I also don't know what comment you think you were responding to with
this: "Your thoughts on appointed positions not voting conflicts with
other EC members" I certainly didn't express any such thought. 

As far as vice chairs, in the text we voted, there is nothing in the EC
duties section for vice chairs - instead the list of officers says that
the first vice chair serves as chair when the chair is unable to do so.
In the WG officer section, that is in the duties section. I was
suggesting the editorial change of making the EC list of duties of
officers more similar to the WG list by putting Vice Chairs in there
instead of as part of the list of officers.

And even if we deal with technical issues we also vote mainly on
procedural issues so the text as it stood was not correct. As you
quoted: "See 7.1.1 Function  'Provide procedural and, if necessary,
technical guidance' puts procedural as our main function and allows
technical "if necessary".

Like Tony, I'm finding it difficult to relate your responses to the
comments we made.


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed Resolution +++



As a reminder we will hold the usual LMSC P&P review meeting this Sunday
night.  Attached is a proposed resolution to comments on the AudCom
ballot as a starting point for discussions on Sunday.  The primary
agenda item for Sunday will be to come to consensus on a resolution for
the AudCom ballot.  If you can't make the meeting and have comments on
the proposed resolution please forward them to the reflector for
discussion.  I will consider all comments circulated during the Sunday
P&P review.  Also, please be prepared to discuss the issues on the
Chair's Guide as well on Sunday.  We will discuss that topic as time
allows after we complete discussions on the AudCom revision ballot.


As much as possible, I have accepted the comments people made.  In some
cases, I tried to improve upon the desired changes a bit.  In a few
cases, I did not accept the requested change as I did not beleive with
the rationale provided was valid.  Here is a short list of the comment
sets and key differences in my proposed resolutions:


Stuart's comments - Fully incorporated

Steve's comment - I disagree that EC cannot make technical decisions.  I
adopted your other changes.

                        Added Parliamentarian as non-voting, but that
may make Bob O'Hara want to reconsider being parliamentarian...

                        I snuck in emeritus.  Perhaps it is time that we
officially recognize Geoff's non-voting status....


John Lemon's comments - Adopted all except 

                        I believe it is common parliamentary practice
for the chair not to make motions


Roger's comments

                        Once again, yes, the EC CAN DEAL WITH TECHNICAL

                                    See 7.1.1 Function  'Provide
procedural and, if necessary, technical guidance to the 

Working Groups and Technical Advisory Groups as it relates to their

                        Non members can't formally be entitled to have
things considered.  But I agree on right of Appeal for everyone


Pat's comments

                        Again, we can deal with technical issues!

                        Since some 'procedural votes' such as call the
question are 66%, let's just reference Roberts Rules.

                        Your thoughts on appointed positions not voting
conflicts with other EC members

                                    For now I've gone with the other
view point

                        I don't understand your comment on moving Vice
Chairs serving as Chairs.


Tony's comments

                        See alternate resolutions based on comments from
other EC members


Mike Lynch

                        See Alternate resolutions


Thanks and Regards to all,




Matthew Sherman, Ph.D. 
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520



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.