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

RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics

At 09:09 01/08/2003 -0400, wrote:


I don t think I understand you comment about the list of pending rules changes.  Can you elaborate more?


Mat -

Paul's proposal can only be put into effect by making a change to the current P&P.

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.

An aside:
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.