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

RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE LETTER BALLOT

Bob -

That's the way I read it too - I aggree with your conclusion.


At 09:05 08/10/99 -0700, Grow, Bob wrote:
>The way I read the operating rules (, the WG Chair decides if
>something is procedural or technical, and is authorized to decide procedural
>items autocratically (no motion required).  Most Working Groups also vote
>some procedural items using Roberts Rules, but that is at the discretion of
>the Chair or as defined in the WG Operating Rules.  Adding the proposed text
>is certainly outside the scope of explicitly defining WG electronic
>balloting, and I would be adverse to sliding in a limitation on the Chair's
>powers or forcing changes in the operation of WGs.
>--Bob Grow
>-----Original Message-----
>From: []
>Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 5:42 AM
>To: Tony Jeffree
>Subject: RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE CHANGE
>Tony, I suggested putting that sentence in to make it clear that a 50%
>was needed for other motions.  I would not be adverse to state that number
>explicitly and continue to soft peddle Robert's Rules. (It is mentioned
>somewhere that in the absence of other rules of ours to the contrary, we
>generally follow Robert's Rules.  I don't recall where and don't have the
>now to locate the reference.)
>Best regards.
>Robert D. Love
>Program Manager, IBM ACS - US
>Chair IEEE 802.5 Token Ring Working Group
>500 Park Offices                   Phone: 919 543-2746
>P. O. Box 12195 CNPA/656           Fax: 419 715-0359
>Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA    E-Mail:
>Tony Jeffree <> on 10/08/99 01:53:21 AM
>To:   Robert Love/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>Subject:  RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE  CHANGE
>At 15:07 07/10/99 -0400, wrote:
>>I wholeheartedly agree with Bob's words.  I would additionally add one
>>additional paragraph that explicitly states that "Voting on non-technical
>>is governed by Robert's Rules of order".  You may or may not want to put
>>paragraph following Bob's words, or where it is indicated that the chair
>>which issues are technical and which are not.
>An observation.
>I know that some working groups enjoy the adversarial atmosphere that can
>be generated by clever manipulation of meetings and the over-use of
>procedural mechanisms such as are embodied in Robert's Rules. Historically,
>802.1 has not been one of those working groups; our operational approach
>has been to attempt to resolve issues rather than to invoke procedures. If
>there is an issue, taking a vote or indulging in procedural devices will
>not make it go away, so it is a smart move to resolve the issue first.  The
>vote then becomes the formal confirmation, rather thatn the attempted means
>of achieving resolution. Consequently, in the time I have been attending
>802.1 meetings (since 1984), I cannot recall any occasion where it was
>either desirable or necessary to invoke Roberts Rules.  For these reasons,
>while I would in no way object to other working groups making use of RR as

>they see fit, I would be very concerned if Robert's Rules were enshrined in
>the operating rules of 802 as the basis for making decisions in WG meetings.