Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
Steve,
I am feeling a frustrated. I feel as if I have said the same thing a
few times, but I don't feel as if you have read it carefully. Bill
Quackenbush understood what I said. So did Bob O'Hara. So did Mat. So
I think that I am writing intelligible English, and so are those
guys. I honestly believe that, if you took the time to write my
email, you would get my point. But perhaps I am not being clear
enough.
Let me try again. I will try to break down my logic so we can figure
out where we are having a disconnect.
My view is that you were incorrect when you said, regarding the
minutes of 14 March 2003:
"In the motion on pages 96-98 of the minutes the sentence is, '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.'"
This is NOT what is in the minutes. I do not believe you have read
the minutes carefully. Please bear with me.
You have quoted from the text of the rules change proposal PRESENTED
to the EC that day. However, the EC did NOT accept that proposal. It
accepted a DIFFERENT change to the rules. To understand the
difference, you need to carefully read the motion that was passed by
the EC in enacting the rules change. That motion is detailed at the
top of page 98 of the minutes. It says this:
"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"
Do you see that motion at the top of Page 98?
Can you see that, as a result of this motion, the P&P change that was
enacted was not the P&P change that was proposed to the EC that day?
Following that vote, the sentence 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."
Do you understand how I derived this sentence?
Can you see the text that was later inserted into the P&P was NOT the
one that the EC approved?
I don't think that you and I can proceed with discussions until you
have come to understand why I believe this was the rule approved on
14 March 2003. If you think I am incorrect, I really need to know why
before we can get into a serious dialog on the issue.
If you still don't follow my logic, I'd like to request that you once
again see my note:
http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg08009.html
Regards,
Roger
At 10:39 AM -0800 06/03/20, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Roger,
>
> I when back to the minutes from the March 2003 Closing EC
>Plenary. The motion is in fact different than the rules and also
>different from your quote. In the motion on pages 96-98 of the minutes
>the sentence is,
>
>"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."
>
> The rules from November 2004 I quoted (I don't have the earlier
>rules) added to that sentence the phrase "members with voting rights."
>I assume that was added due to the new non-voting position of Member
>Emeritus, otherwise there was no reason to differentiate between an EC
>member with voting rights and one without voting rights.
>
> So I am fine with the motion as it is stated, before adding the
>additional phrase to account for the Member Emeritus. Actually, it is
>much clearer. All EC members had voting rights. So it was clear that
>"the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of all voting members of
>the Executive Committee" is in fact what it says 2/3 of those who voted,
>and not 2/3 of all members.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out it makes it much clearer. It got
>confusing with the addition of a non-voting member of the EC.
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:55 AM
>To: Shellhammer, Steve
>Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>
>Steve,
>
>No, I have not said that the existing P&P applies to the Nov 2004
>session. I don't think anyone has said that. That includes Bob.
>
>What I have said is that the applicable sentence at that meeting was
>"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."
>
>The sentence you quoted was never applicable. It is nothing more than
>a typo because it was never approved by the EC for insertion into the
>P&P.
>
>For more on my view, see:
> http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg08009.html
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 08:19 AM -0800 06/03/20, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>>Bob,
>>
>> The rule Roger is quoting is the new rules. I was quoting the
>>rules that were in force when the vote was taken. Actually, I thought I
>>sent out the quote from the rules before, but here it is again.
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> This is why I have been saying the denominator, at that point is
>>time, was the number of EC members who voted. By the way, that was
>also
>>the interpretation at that point in time. It would have been difficult
>>then to base the vote on a future rule that had not been written yet.
>>
>> I am a little confused about the idea of applying new rules to
>>votes that were taken in the past under other rules.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Steve
>>
>>-----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 7:47 PM
>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>>
>>Steve,
>>
>>If the P&P stated that a 2/3 majority was required to pass a rules
>>change, you would be correct that abstentions do not count.
>>
>>But, that is not what the P&P in effect at the time of the November
>2004
>>session said. At that time and as Roger has quoted in an earlier
>email,
>>2/3 of all EC members with voting rights are required for passage of a
>>rules change. This does not require that any particular number of
>>members vote on the issue, or whether any of them abstain.
>>
>>If an EC member does not vote in favor of a rules change, the effect is
>>as if the member voted against the rules change. Very simple and very
>>clear.
>>
>> -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 5:35 PM
>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: [802SEC] Do Abstains Count in the Denominator
>>
>>802 EC,
>>
>>
>>
>> These rules discussions are so much fun. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> There seems to be confusion about whether Abstains count
>in
>>the denominator when a vote is held. In other words if someone
>abstains
>>did they vote?
>>
>>
>>
>> So I thought I would look at Robert's Rules. Here is a
>>quote from Robert's Rules on what it means to abstain.
>>
>>
>>
>> 'To "abstain" means not to vote at all, and a member who
>>makes no response if "abstentions" are called for abstains just as much
>>as one who responds to that effect (see also p. 394).'
>>
>>
>>
>> Based on Robert's Rules an "abstain" is not considered a
>>vote and is not counted in the denominator.
>>
>>
>>
>>Clearly if we start to count Abstains in the denominator it will not
>>only change the meaning of a super majority but also of majority. For
>>example, a vote of 10 yes, 4 No and 10 abstains would not count as a
>>majority if we start to include abstains in the denominator.
>>
>>
>>
>> Of course there are rules that explicitly set the
>>denominator as "all members" and it that case the denominator is those
> >that vote yes, those that vote no those that abstain, those who do not
>>answer, those who are not in the room, those who did not attend the
>>meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> So unless the rule states that the denominator is "all
>>members" then the denominator is the sum of those who vote yes and
>those
>>who vote no. This is of course my humble opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>>----------
>>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.