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

Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change

>At 21:48 08/11/2007, J Lemon wrote:
>I'm mostly in agreement, with one minor difference. I don't like the
>wording of
>
>     This vote is considered to be a technical vote (see 7.2.4.1.1);
>i.e., it requires
>     approval by 75% or more of those members voting “Approve” and “Do
>Not Approve”.
>
>I see no reason to label the vote as technical just because it requires
>the same approval percentage as technical votes. I'd be happier with
>
>     This vote requires approval by 75% or more of those members voting
>“Approve” and “Do Not Approve”.

I agree with John ... it's not really a technical vote, but we want a reasonably high bar.

>
>along with a modification of 7.2.4.1.1 from
>
>     Non-technical votes may be decided by voting procedures as defined
>in Robert's
>     Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition).
>
>to
>
>     Non-technical votes may be decided by voting procedures as defined
>in Robert's
>     Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition),
>     or as specified in these P&P or in the P&P of the WG.

However, I think that putting Roberts first (or even *in*) the sentence above itself introduces some potential ambiguity as to what controls.

I prefer the explicit "this requires 75% approval ..." to be associated with the question of "Should the term limit be waived in this case?"

I also think that this should reside in the 802 P&P and NOT in any WG P&P.

Regards,
Carl

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.