Re: [802SEC] Do we operate under our own rules, or not (again)
I agree that the 802 Rules are broken wrt to at least one thing
That one thing is recirculations less than 40 days (like, all of them).
We need to get some things fixed
At 02:51 PM 2/15/02 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>I would start by looking at this from an 802 perspective since the 802
>Rules supercede any Working Group rules.
>The 802 rules say: "There are two types of votes in the Working Group.
>These are votes at meetings and votes by letter ballot." It then says "The
>letter ballot response time must be at least forty days." So I don't
>believe that a five-day WG vote by email is in accordance with the 802 rules.
>In a similar situation, I suspect that 802.16 would have gone forward with
>a "Task Group Review" of the draft. This would look a lot like a letter
>ballot, but it wouldn't ask for approval or disapproval and there would be
>no participation requirement. We've done this many times, and it usually
>gives us comments that are as good as those we'd get in a letter ballot.
>>Since I didn't see any traffic on this previously, I will post it again to
>>see if it is any more successful this time.
>>Now that the 802.11g fiasco is behind us by a day or two, would you quote
>>from the 802.11 operating rules exactly where you derived the authority to
>>craft a motion, without a second, and send it to the WG for 5-day email
>>ballot? My personal opinion is that there is no authority for such an
>>action in our rules. Thus, the 5-day ballot and the current 40-day ballot
>>on TGg are both in violation of the operating rules of 802.11.
>>I believe that it is crucial that we operate under the EXISTING operating
>>rules. If there are areas of the rules that cause some chafing, then there
>>are procedures defined within the operating rules, to modify the rules.
>>Those procedures are lengthy, to prevent changing the rules frivolously.
>>Just because something appears to be popular, or has several large companies
>>with vested interests pushing for it, is not a reason to operate in
>>violation of the rules.
>>I would like to discuss this on the SEC reflector, because I think that the
>>experience of the other members of the SEC can provide some valuable insight
>>into how issues of this type have been dealt with in the past.
>>Black Storm Networks
>>250 Cambridge Avenue
>>Palo Alto, CA 94306
>>Phone: +1 650 617 2935
>>Mobile: +1 408 218 4025