Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
All,
So I'm really not sure how to resolve this rules issue. However I
believe the fact that the P&P was poorly edited may be trumped by the
fact that SA would overrule the rule in question anyway. I plan to
consult with Paul and SA on this matter. In the mean time (while Roger
did an excellent job of capturing the data) I wish to try to lay out all
the salient facts and governance.
In a later e-mail (tomorrow if possible) I will try and detail the
process followed to derive the posted erroneous P&P which deviated from
the approved rules change. This is mostly with an eye toward process
improvement to try and avoid this ever happening again. Also, we should
try and determine for the future what does happen if a P&P revision is
improperly edited and we live by the wrong rule for a couple of years...
Regards,
Mat
Salient facts and governance:
A P&P revision was approved on 14 March 2003 and the minutes of that
meeting read:
"Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5. Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee Passes:
10/0/2". [The text under discussion was in 3.6.5]
So, the rule should have been record:
"LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting rights."
However what actually got posted to the web on 09 July 2003 (Revised
effective March 14, 2003) read:
"LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
The LMSC P&P in effect during the 14 March 2003 session was the version
'Revised July 12, 2002' which read at that time:
"LMSC approval shall require the affirmative vote of at least two thirds
of all voting members of the Executive Committee. LMSC approval will
result in the rules change becoming effective at the end of Plenary
Session during which approval is voted. The revised LMSC Operating Rules
shall be forwarded to the Computer Society Standards Activities Board
(CS SAB); when the rules are known to be in conflict with the CS SAB
Policies and Procedures the cover letter shall request formal CS SAB
approval of the variance. In the case where the rules change is in
conflict with the Policies and Procedures of CS SAB, the rule change
will be put into effect as stated above but will be withdrawn
immediately if rejected by the CS SAB. CS SAB rejection shall be
announced to the LMSC Executive Committee by the most expeditious means
available (e-mail, FAX, regular mail) and to the LMSC membership at the
next Plenary Session."
A key point is that the P&P of the day (and still today) says the change
become effective at the end of the session where it is approved. This is
regardless of whether or not it is posted, and suggests that its
validity should not tie to what is actually posted on the web. On the
other hand, I've been told in the past by SA what matter is what's
posted on the web, and that things aren't really valid unless reviewed
and approve by AUDCOM.
In the current version of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operating Manual
(I don't have any older versions) you will find the following text:
"The Sponsor shall ensure that its P & P have been reviewed and accepted
by AudCom. NesCom will not review new PARs from a Sponsor if AudCom
informs NesCom that standards development by that Sponsor is not
supported by AudCom due to the status of the Sponsor's P & P."
In the current Standards Board Bylaws (I don't have any older versions)
the following can be found:
4.2.4 Audit Committee (AudCom)
4.2.4.1 Scope
This committee shall provide oversight of the procedures used in the
standards-development activities of IEEE Standards Sponsors as defined
by 5.2.2 and review of the procedures used by the Accredited Standards
Committees for whom the IEEE serves as (co-)secretariat. This committee
shall also oversee the submission of Sponsor annual reports (see
subclause 5.1.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual).
While many revisions of the P&P occurred after the March 14, 2003
revision, the editorial error described above persisted and impacted
some key votes. At the EC meeting of Friday March 19, 2004, under item
10.03 we have:
10.03 MI Adopt proposed Roll Call P&P Changes - Takefman 5 05:25 PM
Motion: Mike Takefman Second: Tony Jeffree
Vote: 8/4/1 The chair reserves the right to vote if allowed.
The chair will rule on the vote after further investigation.
The actual text of the change and considerable debate are captured in
the minutes. But the key point is that it was a very controversial
vote, and we did not know how to interpret the result.
Later in e-mail dated 09 April 2004 the LMSC chair (Paul) stated:
After consulting with IEEE-SA staff (ML Nielson, D Ringle-see rationale
below) and the EC rules experts (M Sherman, B O'Hara), I have decided to
declare the decision on the motion "to adopt the proposed Roll Call P&P
change" as PASSED.
The key point in the e-mail (explained as follows) is that abstains
should not count in the denominator:
Remember the existing rule of the IEEE Bylaws [I-300.4 (1)]:
"Unless otherwise provided in the Certificate of Incorporation, the
Constitution, these Bylaws, the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law of the
State of New York or the applicable governing documents of a board or
committee of any organizational unit of the IEEE (other than the Board
of Directors, the Executive Committee, the Major Boards, the Standing
Committees and any other board or committee reporting directly to the
Board of Directors), the vote of a majority of the votes cast, provided
a quorum is present, shall be the act of such board or committee."
Because of this, the abstain does not count towards the 2/3 total need
to approve.
Interestingly this suggests our current rule for approving P&P revision
is inconsistent with IEEE governance and would be over ridden.
Regardless, the erroneous rule in question persists until finally we
come to the matter in question.
At the EC meeting of Friday 19 November 19 2004, under item 10.06 we
have:
"Motion: to amend the 802 P&P by applying document 19-04/0032r3 to the
802 P&P. Moved:
Shellhammer/Sherman Result: 8/2/5 Passes."
Till this week, I don't believe that result was ever disputed, and it
clearly was accepted as passing at the time. Especially given Paul's
interpretation (with SA guidance) I believe this motion should be taken
have having passed.
Finally at the EC meeting of Friday 18 March 2005, under item 10.18 we
have:
10.18 MI Adopt "P&P Revision Process" - Sherman 5 04:50 PM
Moved: Mat Sherman/Bob Grow
Passes: 13/1/0
The posted P&P (Revised effective March 21, 2005) reads:
LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed P&P revision shall
require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members
with voting rights (regardless of whether they are present). The vote
shall be taken at a plenary closing EC meeting.
Assuming there were no editorial errors, this version of the P&P now
seems consistent with the original intent of the 14 March 2003 revision
that started this who mess. Unfortunately it seems to be inconsistent
with IEEE and SA governance, so I now question the current rules
validity. Further, while these facts provide a possible out for the
current situation, I really haven't found any general guidance on what
to do when an editorial error persists for a substantial period of time,
and our body acts according to the erroneous P&P. I will try and review
the editorial process, but we really should nail down what we will do if
this ever happens again.
Oy do I have a headache!
Sleep well tonight everyone.
I know I won't :-)
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:11 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Steve,
I still have to disagree with you that the motion passed in November
2004. Even if the wording was to count only those EC members who voted,
the tally ("Result: 8/2/5") shows that 15 EC members voted. Two thirds
of those 15 voters, or 10 voters, would need to vote in favor of the
motion for it to pass. Consequently, the motion failed, without regard
to what was recorded in the minutes or the ruling by the chair.
I believe we need Paul to participate in this thread and to say that the
motion actually failed. The result should be that the text currently in
the P&P should be immediately removed. A new P&P change process would
need to be started, in order to include the text in some future update
of the P&P.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:39 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Hi Bill,
Actually the motion passed as was recorded in the minutes. We
had a discussion of the rules at the time and the interpretation was, as
is stated in the rules at that time, the motion required 2/3 of the EC
members who voted.
By the way, the minutes of that meeting were approved over a
year ago at the March 2005 meeting.
Now that the rules have been modified any new motion would
require 2/3 of all EC members.
Regards,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bill Quackenbush
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:48 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
Roger, et al,
Having been present at the 3/14/03 EC meeting and being the one that
requested the instruction "to change the text 'all voting members of the
Executive Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting
rights' in
clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5" be included the motion, I believe that Roger's
reconstruction of the events is correct.
I requested the instruction be included to eliminate the potential
ambiguity of the phrase 'all voting members of the Executive Committee'
that occurred 4 times in sections 3.6.2 and 3.6.5 of the text that Mat
presented for approval. The subsequent editing of the P&P text to
incorporate the approved changes was incomplete resulting in the
ambiguous phrase 'two thirds of all voting Executive Committee members
with voting rights' appearing in the second paragraph of section 3.6.5
as Roger has observed.
So it appears to me that the question is what is the status of
unapproved text in the published version of the P&P. Does the
unapproved text acquire standing and take precedence over the approved
text because the unapproved text was published or does only approved
text have standing?
Best regards,
Bill Q.
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>
> I've done a little research as to how the 2/3 rule has evolved. Kind
> of long, but interesting.
>
> The "old" rule (valid up through at least the JULY 12, 2002 revision)
said:
>
> "LMSC approval shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>
> At the SEC meeting of 14 March 2003, we were presented with a ballot
> resolution that would change the text to:
>
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
> Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> thirds of all voting members of the Executive Committee."
>
> However, the EC appears to have been concerned about possible
> ambiguity here, because it approved the rule change with a
> modification:
>
> "Motion: to approve the rule change for SEC Electronic Ballots with
> instruction to change the text 'all voting members of the Executive
> Committee' to 'all Executive Committee members with voting rights' in
> clauses 3.6.2 and 3.6.5. Moved: Mat Sherman/Buzz Rigsbee Passes:
> 10/0/2". [The text under discussion was in 3.6.5]
>
> So, by my reckoning, the rule became:
>
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
> Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> thirds of all Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>
> There is a problem, however. The P&P issued as effective MARCH 14,
> 2003 says the following:
>
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
> Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
>
> As you can see, whoever edited the rules change forgot to delete the
> first instance of the word "voting". Therefore, the ambiguity that
> the SEC sought to remove remained in the P&P. The erroneous text
> remained through 2004.
>
> The situation cleared again in the MARCH 21, 2005 revision:
> "LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed P&P revision shall
> require the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members
> with voting rights (regardless of whether they are present)."
>
> which is where we stand today.
>
> Fascinating history.
>
> To me, the application of the CA issue is clear. To Bob O'Hara, our
> resident parliamentarian, the denominator [using the language in the
> P&P at the time] includes abstains. There seems to be some
> disagreement about this interpretation. However, there is only one
> possible interpretation of the rule that was actually in force -
> although not stated corrected in the P&P. Under the rule that was in
> force, the coexistence text was NOT approved.
>
> Roger
>
> At 04:01 PM -0800 06/03/16, Bob O'Hara (boohara) wrote:
> >Pat,
> >
> >The wording of the proportion required for approval is the same in
both
> >the November 2004 and current P&P. I believe that the quote from the
> >P&P "two thirds of all voting EC members
> >with voting rights" is pretty clearly stating that the denominator is
to
> >be the total number of votes (Y + N + abstain). If this were not the
> >requirement, the statement would be that a "2/3 majority" is required
> >for approval.
> >
> >So, I stand by my earlier interpretation that the motion actually
failed
> >in November.
> >
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf
Of
> >Pat Thaler
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:56 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >Thanks, I would read that old text "two thirds of all voting EC
members
> >with voting rights" to mean yes votes are at least 2/3 of yes plus no
> >votes. In Robert's Rules, an abstain normally isn't a vote, we
usually
> >use y/(y+n) and we are usually very careful to state when we are
> >requiring a vote of y over total voting membership.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@qualcomm.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:31 PM
> >To: Pat Thaler; ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****;
> >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Pat,
> >
> > I was actually quoting from the November 2004 rules, which I
> >happened to have on my PC. It is attached. I think I had that one
> >around since I was participating in making rules changes back then.
Boy
> >the good old days. :)
> >
> > Looks like the current rules have been clarified.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Steve
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Pat Thaler [mailto:pthaler@broadcom.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:17 PM
> >To: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****; Shellhammer,
Steve;
> >STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >I don't see the text you quote in our current P&P. Are you quoting
from
> >the version in effect at the time of the rules change. (I recall that
we
> >have had a rules change on the rules change section so this change
may
> >not have been done under the current P&P.)
> >
> >In the current P&P, I see two meeting votes on a rules change:
> >One to send it out for ballot requiring "the affirmative vote of at
> >least two-thirds of Committee members with voting rights who vote to
> >approve or disapprove". That is clear even if wordy - pass criteria
is
> >Y/(Y+N).
> >
> >One for final approval of the change which requires "the affirmative
> >vote of at least two-thirds of all EC members with voting rights
> >(regardless of whether they are present)." That is clearly Y/(total
> >number of EC members with voting rights) even if they don't vote or
even
> >aren't present.
> >
> >Pat
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shellhammer, Steve
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:41 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >It sounds like the idea of the motion is not the correct procedure so
I
> >will not bring such a motion to the EC. Guess we will stick with
Paul's
> >interpretation.
> >
> >In terms of the original motion to make the rules change the 802 P&P
> >states
> >
> >"LMSC approval of the revised text of the proposed Policies and
> >Procedures change shall require the affirmative vote of at least two
> >thirds of all voting Executive Committee members with voting rights."
> >
> >The motion passed based on having at least two thirds affirmative of
> >"voting EC members with voting rights." I assume that "voting EC
> >members" means those EC members that voted. By the way, who writes
this
> >stuff? :)
> >
> > I think adding a definitions section to the rules and
clarifying
> >these ambiguous rules is worth doing.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Bob O'Hara (boohara)
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:27 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >From a parliamentary procedure point of view, I would have to agree
with
> >Roger that having a motion have the same effect as our Policies and
> >Procedures is not the correct thing to do. If the point of the new
> >procedure was supposed to be that all work, including that already
> >established before the adoption of the new procedure, was to be
affected
> >by the new procedure, the new procedure should have stated that.
Since
> >it didn't include such language and specifically describes the use of
> >the five criteria document as part of the procedure, it clearly
exempts
> >those projects that existed prior to the adoption of the new
procedure
> >from the needing to implement that procedure.
> >
> >Regarding Roger's question as to whether the motion establishing this
> >procedure actually passed, I can't be certain. According to the
current
> >P&P, 2/3 of all EC members with voting rights must approve a P&P
change.
> >By this measure, the motion did not pass, achieving only 8/15
approval.
> >However, I don't know if the language of this clause (7.1.5.4) has
> >changed since the November 2004 session.
> >
> > -Bob
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
> >[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:25 PM
> >To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] Potential EC Motion
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >I would be opposed to this motion on coexistence assurance, for the
> >following reasons:
> >
> >(1) The proposed motion seeks to, in effect, impose a new rule on
WGs.
> >Our rules are defined not by motion of the EC but by the P&P. If
someone
> >wants to impose a new rule, they ought to be proposing a P&P change,
not
> >a motion. If an approved motion has the status of a rule, then our
> >process is broken.
> >
> >(2) The proposed motion (if approved and enforced) would be adding a
> >completely new rule, not interpreting an existing rule. The existing
P&P
> >says:
> >
> >*21 [Procedure for Coexistence Assurance] "If indicated in the five
> >criteria, the wireless working group shall produce a coexistence
> >assurance (CA) document in the process of preparing for working group
> >letter ballot and Sponsor ballot."
> >
> >The projects subject to this motion do NOT indicate in their Five
> >Criteria that a CA document will be produced. The language of
Procedure
> >21 is clear. It does NOT apply to those projects.
> >
> >(3) The proposed motion is out of character with the existing rule.
> >The existing P&P, as part of the Five Criteria language, says:
> >
> >*17.5.4.1 "A working group proposing a wireless project is required
to
> >demonstrate coexistence through the preparation of a Coexistence
> >Assurance (CA) document unless it is not applicable... If the Working
> >Group elects not to create a CA document, it will explain to the EC
the
> >reason the CA document is not applicable."
> >
> >In other words, for future projects, the existing P&P acknowledges
that
> >a CA document may or may not be applicable to wireless projects,
leaving
> >the WG with the opportunity to argue a position. The proposed motion
> >would have the EC jump to its own conclusion that a CA document is
> >applicable to all of the pre-existing projects.
> >
> >
> >On a related issue: I would like to better understand how the CA got
> >into the P&P in the first place. The minutes of the EC meeting of
Friday
> >19 November 19 2004 state, under item 10.06: "Motion: to amend the
802
> >P&P by applying document 19-04/0032r3 to the 802 P&P. Moved:
> >Shellhammer/Sherman Result: 8/2/5 Passes." However, I question
whether
> >a vote of 8/2/5 was sufficient to pass the motion. In my
understanding,
> >a change of P&P requires approval of 2/3 of the EC.
> >Perhaps someone can explain the grounds for ruling that the motion
was
> >carried.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >At 11:47 AM -0800 06/03/16, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> >>IEEE 802 EC,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I have modified the motion that Ajay made at the
Friday
> >>closing plenary, with the intent to see if it is possible to come to
an
> >
> >>agreement on text that would be acceptable to the executive
committee.
> >>I will take comments on this text and if we can agree on the text I
> >will
> >>run an electronic EC ballot on the resulting text, with Paul's
> >>permission.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is the text I drafted based on what I received
from
> >>Ajay. Please send me and the rest of the EC your comments.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>CA Motion
> >>
> >>Any wireless project intended for unlicensed operation, that could
> >>potentially cause interference to an 802 wireless standard, and
whose
> >>PAR was approved prior to November 2004 and begins working group
letter
> >
> >>ballot after November 2004 shall produce a coexistence assurance
> >>document and distribute that CA document with working group letter
> >>ballot and Sponsor ballot.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>Steve
> >>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.