Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Arnie,
The P&P specifies a process for changing it(self) :-)
Additionally, AudCom only wants to review one P&P update/change per year, so
we are even more constrained in our ability to actually change the P&P.
Hopefully this will improve when we finally implement a split into a (really
stripped down) P&P and a separate "Ops Manual" that is easier to update and
doesn't fall under the AudCom review constraints.
For now, I think the best we can do is agree on an interpretation, approve
it by motion and vote, and capture it in the minutes of the EC meeting.
Regards,
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> greenspana@bellsouth.net
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:53 PM
> To: J Lemon; STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>
> All:
>
> Voting on an interpretation works for me as long as it is
> coupled with clarifying the inerpretation that we come up
> with in the P&P by changing the wording.
>
> Arnie
>
> -------------- Original message from J Lemon
> <jlemon@IEEE.ORG>: --------------
>
>
> > Unless Roberts really says such (I don't care enough to
> research whether
> > it does), I believe that we should handle interpretations
> the same way
> > our WGs handle interpretations: vote on a proposed interpretation.
> >
> > On 10/29/2007 6:25 PM, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
> > > I have always held that the Chair has final say on P&P
> interpretations.
> > > I believe that is per Roberts rather than the rules, but
> I'm pretty tied
> > > up and haven't made time to look it up...
> > >
> > > Mat
> > >
> > > Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> > > Engineering Fellow
> > > BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
> > > Office: +1 973.633.6344
> > > Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> > > email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----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 6:31 PM
> > > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > > Subject: 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!).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tony,
> > >>
> > >> Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are
> > >> vague.
> > >>
> > >> 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. :)
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steve
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----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
> > >> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > >> 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?
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Tony
> > >>
> > >> ----------
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.