RE: [802SEC] RE: Motion - Rules Change to add a second SEC vice c hair
Thanks for the input, justifiably so.
The point I am still asking Paul is should 220.127.116.11 be in the original motion, and should a similar clause to this be added at a latter time to the LMSC section.
With regards to cause or just etc.... I don't really care which, but I would like to know for my own delectation what that means, and what is the breath or legalese, but after this motion has moved ahead.
<firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Stuart Kerry/SVL/SC/PHILIPS@AMEC
Sent by: email@example.com
mo.ieee.org Subject: RE: [802SEC] RE: Motion - Rules Change to add a second SEC vice c hair
If you look at the .pdf attached to the ballot, the only change to that
section was grammar consistent with more than one Vice Chair (addition of
the word "a"). I expect Paul searched the document for the word "vice" to
assure that grammar in all cases was appropriate. Other than 3.2b), all
other changes are editorial changes to support more than one Vice Chair.
The addition of "just" before "cause" would be redundant in any case.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:09 PM
Subject: [802SEC] RE: Motion - Rules Change to add a second SEC vice
Please could you clarify the item addressed below, in your MOTION "Rules
Change to add a second SEC vice chair".
18.104.22.168 Removal of Working Group Chairs or Vice Chairs.
The LMSC Executive Committee may remove the Chair or a Vice Chair of a
Working Group or TAG for cause.
Surely this is not part of this MOTION, if it is maybe you should have
included in the MOTION:
"Removal of the SEC Chair, SEC Vice Chairs, Working Group Chairs, WG Vice
Chairs or TAG Chairs. The LMSC Executive Committee may remove the SEC Chair
or a SEC Vice Chair or a Working Group or TAG Chair or there Vice Chair(s)
for JUST cause."
This assumes that CAUSE is clearly defined or left so nebulous that anything
PLEASE CLARIFY this point whether it is in the motion or is inappropriate to
I do think though that we do have a hole in our rules that needs to be
clarified better regarding this very point. If it is not in this motion then
separate one may be required at a later date.
I await you answer.
Stuart J. Kerry
Chairperson, IEEE 802.11 WLANs WG