RE: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules change.
I am not familiar with just how you folks implement the use of voting
tokens. I can understand how they could help mitigate the
unauthorized voter problem.
What is clear is that you are more worried about roll calls being used
offensively as a delaying tactic.
My history and concern is of its use as a defensive tactic.
Hopefully we can sort something out that respects both needs.
At 02:23 PM 11/17/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
I am cautious about a rule that would allow a minority to force a roll
call vote. I need to think carefully about this during the P&P change
ballot, because I see tremendous potential for abuse.
I don't know how long a roll-call vote would take in a large group, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it took 30-60 minutes. In that case, a
relatively small minority could bring the entire process to a complete
standstill. A few roll-call votes would prevent any other issue from
coming to the floor during, for instance, a closing plenary.
I'm glad you recognize that the impact of a roll call does depend on
whether the WG limits normal voting to members only. In 802.16, we use
voting tokens and so have a good control of who may vote. Perhaps that's
one reason why, to my recollection, I've never heard a request for a roll
call in 802.16.
If a WG doesn't use voting tokens or otherwise control who votes, then
the proposed rule becomes potentially even more onerous because, in that
case, you might need a first roll call vote to determine whether the 20%
threshold to have a roll call vote was reached; only then could you carry
out the roll call vote that was requested.
I won't be sad if I find that a WG chair refuses a roll call. This is a
judgement call that the chair, who is in a better position to know the
full facts, has to make. I am beginning to worry that we'll all be sad if
this rule comes into effect and begins to bog down our progress. It will
take some strong arguments in favor of the P&P change to get my
I agree that any chair may require a roll call vote whenever they feel it
I believe that the issue that was put before us is when one or more
members of the voting body feel it is appropriate and the chair does
It makes me sad that a chair would refuse such a request.
I understand that my particular view of this might not be appropriate in
some groups where who may vote is controlled more carefully than in
At 11:30 AM 11/17/2003 -0800, Bob O'Hara wrote:
I agree with Paul on this matter.
However since our P&P allow a chair to decide all procedural matters,
any chair may ask for a roll call vote at any time they feel it is
On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:25 AM
Subject: [802SEC] Update on the motion to operate under a pending rules
Dear EC members,
The motion to operate under the pending rules change on Roll Call
Votes was 7 approve, 5 disapprove, 1 abstain.
The LMSC bylaws require a least a 2/3 majority of all EC members to
approve a rules change for submission to ballot and for adoption. The EC
has 13 members with voting rights. Greater than 2/3 of the EC
members is at least 9. In my haste to conclude the meeting, I
didn't apply this rationale, but upon reflection, it is my judgement that
motions regarding the adoption of a rule (regardless if they are
permanent or temporary) must require at least 2/3 majority.
Therefore, the motion to operate under the pending rules change on roll
call votes did not pass as it did not achieve at least a 2/3