RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics
At 09:09 01/08/2003 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I don t think I understand you comment about the list of pending rules
changes. Can you elaborate more?
Paul's proposal can only be put into effect by making a change to the
My point is simple; you already have (as you pointed out in the last SEC
meeting) a growing list of things that need to be changed in the P&P,
including one major item (the much-needed changes that will establish a
set of WG membership rules that actually mean anything, and that fix the
initial membership issue in an acceptable way) that we have so far failed
to resolve. I will personally not support any additions to the list of
things that we need to fix in the rules, especially items like this one
that I don't believe are needed anyway, until we have "cleaned up
our act" by fixing the problems with the rules that we already know
about but have so far failed to fix.
I was about to say that there is one exception to my statement
above; that I would support a new rules change initiative to fix the
amazingly broken way we decide whether a rules change passes, fails, or
is assigned for further study. When we took the vote that failed to
approve the membership rules change last Friday, Paul stated that 2/3
approval was required to pass, less than 1/3 approval would fail, and
between 1/3 and 2/3 approval would cause the item to be assigned for
further study. However, on looking at what the current P&P state, it
would seem that we didn't follow our stated rules, which actually seem to
be in good shape on this point. In 3.6.5 of the P&P it states that
LMSC approval of a rules change requires a 2/3 majority, and that (and I
quote the entire last para of 3.6.5):
"If LMSC approval is not achieved, a
vote to assign the proposal for further study and recommendation shall be
taken. Assignment shall require the affirmative vote of at least one
third of all voting members of the Executive Committee, otherwise no
further action is taken on the proposal."
We haven't followed this last requirement; the vote to approve that rules
change failed, and we have not yet taken the required subsequent vote on
whether or not to assign the proposal for further study.
End of aside.
In the meantime, as I have said already, there are other
actions that we can take regarding Paul's issue, such as the web-based
summary idea, that don't involve a change of P&P and may well result
in an improvement in our collective behaviour that would obviate our need
to fix the problem by a rules change.