George, P-1788,
To the extent that our P&P is ambiguous, blame either IEEE (since much of
the verbiage is required from them) or me (in consultation with John), since
what I did was to try to modify the IEEE P&P, where permissible, to make
it fair and function smoothly when conducting business exclusively by
email. If we identify ambiguous points that can be changed, we should
note these and submit a document to IEEE with suggestions. (I view our
proceedings partially as a "beta test" of conducting international
standardization business by email.) If we identify details that cannot
be changed, and if there is contention within our group, we should perhaps
seek an opinion from the appropriate IEEE body.
That said, I don't see a problem either way as long as we all agree that
the procedures are fair and they are applied consistently. I view
the more formal phase as the "sponsor ballot," which happens once
we deliver the document to the MSC and the ballot pool is formed. My
understanding is that strict formality is required in the working group
when necessary to avoid destructive contention or when necessary to
keep focused and make progress towards production of the final document.
Regarding specifically whether we need a 2/3 majority of active members or a
2/3 majority of those voting, what do Robert's Rules say? (If we
need active members, we can take two additional votes, delaying 6 weeks,
to weed out those who do not vote.) Regarding handling of the suggestions
from "No" votes, I agree with George's two alternatives, except that we may
want to modify alternative #2 to mean that the reformulation is done as
an amendment, with only those portions of the document in contention included
in the amendment. That way, we will have made SOME progress regardless
of the outcome of the second vote.
Best regards,
Baker
On 04/18/2012 08:19 AM, Corliss, George wrote:
P1788,
Earlier this morning, I had announced that Motion M0031.01 Level 1 text has passed. On re-reading our Policies and Procedures, hit is not clear to me exactly what is required to pass actual standard text.
May I ask any language lawyers in the group to read our P&P (attached) with care and render opinions. Be sure to read the entire document, because there are several clauses that seem relevant. My original interpretation (quorum is 1/2, 2/3
(my interpretation: of those voting) is required to pass) came from Section 11.1. Section 10.6 is relevant. Section 10.2 says 2/3 of the WG membership is required to move the draft standards project to the Sponsor, which is NOT what we are
doing.
If we agree that passing an addition to the standards text requires a 2/3 majority of the membership, 37 yes votes < 41 = 2/3 of the membership, and the motion would fail.
Where the motion passed or not, our P&P specifies the 5 votes of NO must be considered as motion(s?) to amend this motion. Since this is the first time this has come up in P1788, we must figure out how to do that. I suggest two alternatives:
#1 If the original authors (John Pryce and Dan Zuras) are generally accepting of the points made by those voting NO, they could revise the motion to reflect the positions of the NO voters, confirm that their changes are now acceptable, and
re-submit the motion (as 31.02) for discussion and then re-voting.
#2 If John and Dan do not agree with the spirit of the NO voters, then I suggest the NO voters take the initiative and reformulate a form of the motion they can support, keeping in mind that the current form received strong support. The
revised motion is resubmitted, discussed, and voted upon.
George Corliss
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: P1788: M0030.02 & M0031.01 PASSED
Date: April 18, 2012 5:33:59 AM CDT
To: stds-1788 <STDS-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Corliss, George" <george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
P1788,
PASSED: Motion M0030.02 Constructors
Yes: 41; No: 3; Required for quorum: 31
PASSED: Motion M0031.01 Level 1 text
Yes: 37; No: 5; Required for quorum: 31; 2/3 majority required to pass
Voting is underway on motion M0032.01. Baker's call is appended below.
Motion M0032.02 Midpoint
Current tally: Yes: 12; No: 27; Required for quorum: 31
Voting by rules for position papers
Voting closes Tuesday, April 22
Recall that according to our Policies and Procedures, if you do not vote on two consecutive motions, you can be removed from the official roster of Voting Members. Re-instatement is easy, but why not consider each of these motions and
VOTE SOON.
In addition, Motions M0033.01 Number Format and M0034.01 Notation are under discussion, with discussion periods to close 7 May 2012.
George Corliss
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx