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

RE: [802SEC] EC email vote statistics



Thanks for the clarification, it helps a lot.  I agree that Paul’s plan requires a P&P change (though I don’t think Paul has stated that as such yet).  I agree that we have a back log of desired P&P changes.  Actually, this one was on the list I presented to the EC last meeting in somewhat broader scope:


            “Suspend SEC voting privledges if certain core responsibilities not performed

                        Progress reports, Input for project plan etc., failing to respond to ballots”


Of course, this was a matter to be brought to debate and would only be balloted if people felt it was worth considering.  Also, don’t think we as a group have tried to prioritize the rules issues I’ve identified to date.  We really should do that.  I also agree that we have failed to follow our own rules for putting a rules change to “further study”.  On the other hand, I’m not sure exactly what assignment to further study accomplishes anyway.  We would have to initiate a new rules ballot to bring it out of study, and we can always study it informally.  Oh well.  Not sure where this is going.  Guess it’s just another aside.









Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree []
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 9:21 AM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Subject: 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.