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

Hi Roger,


Thanks for your comments.  As I've explained in prior e-mails to others,
my goal is to have this ballot approved, but my 'proposed resolution'
indicates my personal opinion given what I have heard.  It is not meant
to represent the position of the group.  When we hold comment resolution
on Sunday night, I will go with the consensus, not my own opinion, and
try to form a document that represents the consensus position.  In the
future I may do things differently (more along the lines of what Tony
suggested) but it's a lot of work to backtrack now, so please be patient
with me in that regard.  I do want to explain and defend my position a

First, there is a big difference between 1%, and 0%.  The difference is
that the rules have to allow for that 1%, which is why I have made a big
deal over this.  

Second, even if it were 0% technical, someone still has to make the
determination on whether a motion is technical or procedural.
Traditionally that power resides with the chair.

Third, I have a concern about what I will term 'emergency powers'.  A
few months back, I was in the position of being acting chair.  During
that time, the question came up as to whether or not the chair can ever
act on behalf of the group without the groups express consensus.
Several individuals expressed the opinion that the Chair may never make
a decision on behalf of the group, but must take everything to the group
for a vote.  I am of the opinion that this view is wrong, and not
according to Roberts.  Yes we are primarily a consensus based
organization, but on occasion an important decision may need to be made
where there is not time or ability to gain the consensus of the group.
A possible example would be if we are at a session, and we need to make
an immediate decision on a particular expenditure or it will impact our
meetings, or perhaps there is an injury that needs to be dealt with.
Someone needs to have the authority to make a decision on behalf of
LMSC, and then bring it back to the group (with an explanation as to why
it occurred) for ratification.  I believe that Robert's Rules (and most
organizational charters) allow for such situations.  I believe ours
should as well.  So in answer to your question, I believe we have been
asked to by AUDCOM to 'clarify the responsibilities of the Chair'.
Especially because this has been a contentious issue in the past, I want
to bring it to the floor for discussion so that I understand what power
the Chair does have, and does not.  If the consensus is that the Chair
can do nothing without first gaining approval from the group, then I
will go with that.  But I think it would be a very poor decision if that
were the outcome....

See you in a couple of days....


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:44 AM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed
Resolution+++ AudCom


Perhaps we will have an ongoing argument about whether the EC's  
technical functions should be 0% or closer to 1% of its work. But it  
now seems that we agree that the EC's functions are almost all  

This is one reason I cannot in any way support your language that says:

> The LMSC Chair has the following responsibilities:
>  a) Decide which matters are procedural and which matters are  
> technical
>  b) When a vote by the EC is not possible, decide procedural matters

Let's consider a decision to forward a draft to Sponsor Ballot.  
Procedural or technical? Based on the discussion, it seems that we  
have pretty broad agreement that this is procedural. And the current  
P&P supports that view, via 7.33(e) ["Examine and approve Working  
Group draft standards for proper submission to Sponsor ballot group;  
not for technical content."]

I don't know the meaning of "when a vote by the EC is not possible"  
but, in my view, there is no situation in which the decision to  
forward a draft [or a PAR] should be granted to the EC Chair.

I'd appreciate your explanation as to why you introduced this notion  
into a ballot addressing AudCom concerns. Are you suggesting that  
AudCom demands that we grant this power to the EC Chair?

I'm against it. And I expect to remain in a Disapprove stance on this  
ballot as long as (b) remains.


P.S. What exactly is the meaning of (c): "Place matters to a vote by  
EC members"? Given that (e) prohibits the Chair from making a motion,  
what is the real responsibility demanded by (c)? I don't see any.

On Jul 11, 2007, at 10:21 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:

> Pat,
> 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!
> Mat
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email:
> -----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
> Matt,
> 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
> needed.
> 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.
> Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> [] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US  
> SSA)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:52 PM
> To:
> Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot - Proposed  
> Resolution +++
> AudCom
> Folks,
> 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  
>                                     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
> charters.'
>                         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,
> Mat
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems -  Network Systems (NS)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email:
> ----------
> 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.