Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change
Bob -
Thanks for that - your additions are indeed an improvement.
Regards,
Tony
At 20:45 08/11/2007, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
>Tony,
>
>I like the changes you have made and would suggest there are a few more
>small changes that will reduce the ambiguity even further. I have added
>my changes to those you have proposed.
>
>
> -Bob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:34 AM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules
>change
>
>Following the interesting discussion on the email exploder on this
>topic, I decided to take a shot at hacking the P&P text into
>something rather more watertight and hopefully rather closer to what
>we intended to say in the first place. As with all of these things,
>the closer you look at the existing text the more problems come out
>of the woodwork. So in addition to the initial problem of
>interpreting the number of years vs number of terms of office
>ambiguity, I came across the following problems:
>
>1) Although the existing text specifies when terms of office come to
>an end, it only indirectly specifies what happens next.
>
>2) The wording around the 10-year rule is sufficiently ambiguous that
>it could be interpreted as requiring someone that has spent 10 years
>as Vice Chair to undergo the 75% vote before standing for Chair (and
>vice versa). I know Bob Grow disagrees with me on this
>interpretation, but suffice it to say that if I wrote something
>similar in a draft standard I would expect to get comments requiring
>the ambiguity to be removed.
>
>3) The text doesn't make it clear what question the WG should vote on
>in cases where the 75% approval is required. I.e., it says that
>something needs to be approved by 75%, but not what that something is.
>
>4) (this is probably the worst of the lot, and in my view, makes it
>essential that we have a clear interpretation next week) The wording
>around the 75% vote does not specify what "a 75% vote of the WG"
>means. Hence, it is open to at least the following interpretations,
>some of which might be terribly difficult to achieve:
>
>- 75% of the people in the room (members and observers).
>
>- 75% of the participants in the WG (voting members and observers,
>whether in the room or not).
>
>- 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or not).
>
>- 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>
>- Same as a technical vote (75% of those voting members voting
>Approve and Disapprove).
>
>- Impossible to determine, as a WG is a single entity, so a 75% of it
>isn't a meaningful concept.
>
>- Some other interpretation that I haven't thought of.
>
>I have attached a marked-up version of the relevant sections that I
>believe fixes the problems that I have identified. My intention would
>be to use this as the basis for a rules change ballot.
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.