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

Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P


	Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are

	I was not around when the phrase "greater than 8 years" was
introduced in the P&P so I can't speak to the intent.  Cleary there are
(at least) two possible interpretations of "greater than 8 years,"

1. Eight years plus one day
2. Nine years

	Clearly the safest interpretation is #1.

	I think we need to be a little more careful in writing our rules
going forward so less interpretation of vague statements is necessary.

	Mat, do we have a method of agreeing on interpretation of vague
rules?  I know that sounds silly but Tony asked a good question and I
don't know how the EC answers such a question.  Is it based on EC member
consensus?  That seems to be what we are doing.  Maybe that is the best
way.  Does Paul make an interpretation?  Does Mat?  It seems the best
method is some form of consensus of the EC.  We are kind of a special
group since we write the rules and also interpret the rules.  We are
both the Legislature and the Judicial system. :)


-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P

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.