Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Thanks for the clarification - that fits with my own interpretation
of the intent.
I would agree with you on the (long term) need to fix the wording so
that there is no doubt about the interpretation (or at least, to
change the nature of the doubt ;-) )
At 21:28 29/10/2007, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Let me repeat, a bit more explicitly.
>At election time, you will have served more than eight years.
>Therefore, according to a literal interpretation and considering the
>schedules of the two March sessions, you need the WG's pre-approval.
>On the other hand, as of the election, you will not have completed
>your fourth two-year term. Therefore, if "eight years" is "four two-
>year terms", then you don't need pre-approval.
>I think that the intent of "eight years" is "four two-year terms".
>That's because, like Carl, I don't believe that whether or not a
>chair can run for a fifth term (without WG approval) depends on when
>in March the Plenary is held. So I don't think you need a pre-approval.
>Random additional notes:
>(1) For historical interest, I've looked up the oldest rules document
>I have: 15 March 2001. It says "An individual who has served as Chair
>or Vice Chair of a given Working Group for a total of more than eight
>years in that office may not be elected to that office again." So the
>ambiguity has been around for awhile.
>(2) When we fix the rule, we might want to be a little clearer
>regarding someone who has been both Chair and Vice Chair. Because of
>the term "that office", I think it's clear that being Vice Chair
>would not count against an individual's time as Chair, but still I
>think we could be a little more explicit.
>(3) The current rule also uses the word "total", which I believe
>means that the eight years need not be contiguous. Again, we might
>want to be even more explicit in the revision.
>(3) My views on the rules are not clouded by my own circumstances. I
>have already served for over eight years as 802.16 Chair, so the rule
>certainly applies to me.
>On Oct 29, 2007, at 01:04 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>I'm not sure that what you have said makes it any clearer...
>>If the intent was "more than four two-year terms" then the
>>requirement for a 75% vote doesn't kick in until the fifth term.
>>If the intent was literally "more than eight years", then I agree
>>that the calendar shows the requirement for a vote is now.
>>So which one is correct?
>>At 17:20 29/10/2007, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>>I think that the intent of "eight years" is "four two-year terms".
>>>On the other hand, if we take the "eight years" literally, then I
>>>think we ought to look at the calendar. According to my records, the
>>>March 2000 session ended on 9 March and the March 2008 session opens
>>>on 17 March.
>>>On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>>>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?
>>>>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.