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

An example of a non-technical, non-procedural vote would be the location of an
interim meeting.  It would be highly autocratic, and certainly against my sense
of appropriate procedure for the chair to decide unilaterally where the meeting
should be held.  I believe that we must account for this class of vote and
specify the rules under which the vote is to be taken.  That said, I am in
agreement with Bob Grow's comment that we must be careful to not hamstring the
Chair with the unnecessary burden of bringing all manner of procedural issues to
a vote.

By the way, it is interesting to see the level of subtlety implied in our rules.
I think the e-mail forum is an excellent one to allow for thoughtful discussion
over a reasonably long period of time to draw out the implications, and without
taking an undue amount of anyone's time.  Seeing the progression of this
discussion, and the benefits of conducting it over e-mail, I believe that we
should be giving consideration as to how to expand the set of topics that get
discussed electronically, so that we can decrease the discussion and time
required to address SEC issues at the plenary meetings.

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 12:45:44 PM

To:   "Grow, Bob" <>
cc:   Robert Love/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
Subject:  RE: Bob Grow's proposed rewording of the ++PROPOSED RULE  CHANGE

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.