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

Re: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation



This is an interesting analysis. 
 
Let me air a different point of view concerning the ambiguity of the bylaws.
 
We have had many working groups started since these bylaws were issued.  I am unaware of any of those working groups holding to the belief that the "retention" rules kicked in until after the 4th plenary session had passed.  I.e. anyone who gained voting rights on or before the 4th plenary session was not in jeopardy of losing those voting rights before the end of the 4th plenary meeting of that working group.
 
Does anyone have other information contrary to my understanding?
 
If not, then I question the ambiguity of the current rules, at least with respect to this point.
 
Best regards,
 
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle     Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773       Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org          Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation

Hi Folks,

 

I have heard it suggested to me that a valid course of action is to leave the current rules on this matter in the state of being “ambiguous or doubtful” and let each chair interpret it for his/her self.  I do not believe this is a valid course of action, and felt I should review the background of this motion.  Most of this is taken from the first e-mail I sent on this topic.

 

To quote from Article IX of Robert’s Rules (10th edition):

 

            “If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if possible, in harmony with other bylaws.  The interpretations should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined.  Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question.  The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable.”    

 

I am of the opinion that our “bylaws” (the LMSC P&P) are in fact “ambiguous or doubtful” regarding the process of obtaining membership at the start up of a working group.  In particular we have from section 5.1.3.1 titled “Establishment”:

 

            “All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working Group become members of the Working Group.” 

 

On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled “Retention”:

 

            “Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session meetings.  One duly constituted interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two Plenary meetings.”

 

As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis) in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with one another.  Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not we intended “meeting” or “session” in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these two rules seem to conflict with one another.  Even taking the liberal view that meeting means session, after the first session the general rules would kick in and all “members” would seem to lose their membership in the WG once the initial meeting was completed. 

 

All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should “fix” this problem by the end of the July meeting.  My concern is for the beginning of the July meeting.  Given what happened in March to 802.20, I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these “bylaws” so that we don’t have a repeat of the last meeting.  As indicated by Robert’s Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority vote.   More importantly it “MUST” be interpreted one the problem is identified.  If possible, it should be interpreted to be “in harmony” with other bylaws and “in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined”.  The point here is that it may not be possible to interpret a rule in harmony with the other rules, or determine the exact intent 802 had when they adopted these rules.  However, we still MUST interpret the rules, and then amend them as soon as possible.  Leaving it ambiguous for each Chair to interpret independently given that we know a problem exist is not permissible by my reading of Robert’s Rules.

 

Hopefully this was helpful.

 

Thanks,

 

Mat

 

 

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nikolich [mailto:paul.nikolich@att.net]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 7:23 PM
To: IEEE802
Subject: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation

 

Dear SEC,

This is a 15 day SEC email ballot on a Motion to Interpret the LMSC P&P rule on Working Group Initial Membership as moved by Mat Sherman and seconded by Geoff Thompson.

The email ballot opens on Monday April 14, 2003 9PM EDT and closes Thursday April 29, 2003 9PM EDT.

Please direct your responses to the SEC reflector with a CC directly to me (p.nikolich@ieee.org).

Regards,

--Paul Nikolich

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:57 PM

Subject: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation

 

Paul,

 

I wish to formally make a motion concerning the interpretation of the current initial membership rules.  The motion I would like to make is as follows:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Motion that until the P&P revision titled "WG membership" being balloted starting March 27th, 2003 is completed (estimated to occur at the end of the July 2003 IEEE 802 Plenary meeting) the line in the LMSC P&P section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention" reading:

’Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session meetings.’

Should be interpreted as reading:

’Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary sessions. (An individual who attains membership by participation and attendance at the first meeting of a new Working Group is assumed to have the right to retain that membership by the granting of credit for 'full virtual attendance' at the plenary session that would be immediately previous to the first working group plenary session.)’”

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Geoff Thompson helped develop this motion, and has agreed to second it.  Note that based on recent discussions it is somewhat different than the motion I said I would first make on the reflector.  This motion maximally protects the voting rights of initial members by ensuring retention of their rights through the first 4 plenary sessions.  We believe this is the motion that has the greatest chance of success.  If this fails, we may want make a second motion which we would want to complete before the end of the upcoming wireless interim session.  Since the motion is reasonably concise we would prefer a 15 day ballot period for this interpretation to allow time for a second round if needed.

 

Regards,

 

Mat

Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com