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

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

Steve -

That question (how do we agree on an interpretation) was also at the 
back of my mind. I would be fascinated to know what the answer is (or 
even if there is one!).


At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>         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.