Re: [802SEC] +++EC Motion+++ Rules Change Ballot on Roll Call Votes
I vote Disapprove.
In the first paragraph, I believe that "can" should be changed to "may".
In the second paragraph, since 75% of members voting for or against any
motion can pass the motion, allowing 20% to force a roll call vote call
vote may be inviting the use of roll call votes as a stalling tactic.
Requiring support of 25% might be a better trade off between protecting
the minority and reducing the use as a delaying tactic.
The limitation on the time consumed by roll call votes should be deleted
as it can easily be used to block roll call votes on significant issues
by simply calling for roll call votes early in a meeting on trivial issues.
I proposed the following revised text
184.108.40.206.3 Roll Call Votes
A roll call vote may be held at the discretion of the chair.
A roll call vote shall be held if moved by a member of the group and the
motion is supported by greater than a quarter (25%) of the members
voting for and against the motion.
Mike Takefman wrote:
> Dear EC Members,
> as per the motion at the November Plenary closing
> EC meeting I am starting a (35 day) ballot on
> the proposed rule change. I am extending the ballot
> to account for the upcoming US Thanksgiving holiday
> (and yes Canada has such a holiday - its just a month
> I will be running a face to face comment resolution session
> during the January Interim Session to try to finalize
> the language. I believe sunday night is the best time
> to hold such a meeting, but I am open to other suggestions.
> The language you will find enclosed is different (and
> I believe improved) from what was shown at the EC meeting.
> 1) It attempts to provide better sentence structure
> (less of a run-on sentence).
> 2) It addresses an issue brought up to me personally
> by one of the 2 dissenting voters to the rules change
> motion in terms of insuring that roll call votes cannot
> be used as a delaying tactic.
> Personally, I have only seen roll call votes used in dot17
> sparingly and they have in fact helped me determine when a group
> was attempting to block concensus / progress. As such, there
> has never been an issue with their use as a delay tactic,
> but I do have sympathy for such a concern.
> Michael Takefman email@example.com
> Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
> Name: 802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revision_Balloted_r2.doc
> 802.0-RollCall_P&P_Revision_Balloted_r2.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64
> Name: 802_RollCall_P&P.pdf
> 802_RollCall_P&P.pdf Type: Adobe Portable Document Format (application/pdf)
> Encoding: base64