Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
At 15:30 07/09/2006, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Of the items you suggested should be on the 75% list, several of them
>are already addressed by existing P&P clauses that specify 75%:
> 9.1 Procedure for Establishing a Directed Position
> 184.108.40.206 Removal of Working Group Chairs or Vice Chairs
> 14.2 Procedure for Communication with Government Bodies
That's fine - what I suggested doesn't contradict that. However (and I have
fleshed this out a bit in my comments - you will see them shortly) we could
very easily make this all a lot clearer just by saying that there is only
one type of "voting in (WG) meetings" and that it requires 75%. Then there
would be no need to re-state the 75% threshold everywhere.
>The procedure for liaisons does not specify 75%:
> 14.1 Procedure for Coordination with Other Standards Bodies
I believe that should be 75%.
>I don't think the threshold for meeting minutes is currently
Similarly, I think that should be 75%. If 49% of my WG (or even 95% come to
that) didn't want to approve the minutes, then I would suspect that there
might just be something wrong with them.
>On Sep 7, 2006, at 05:12 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>PARs and drafts are NOT the only output documents of a WG. We also
>>generate liaisons and position papers to other organizations, and
>>meeting minutes, for example; I believe that motions approving
>>these are rightly considered to be technical motions also.
>>I agree that "output documents" is vague, but the way to fix that
>>is to add a definition of what the list of things that constitute
>>"output documents" actually is, and then use the term. However, the
>>list of things that need to be decided by a "technical" (75%
>>approval) vote of the WG is ABSOLUTELY NOT IMHO restricted to
>>output documents; for example, a motion to impose a directed
>>position on a Chair, or a motion to remove a Chair from office,
>>should very definitely be considered to be "technical" votes as
>>opposed to procedural (decided by the Chair) matters! So I think
>>the fundamental problem with this change to defining the
>>"procedural/technical" distinction only in terms of output
>>documents is that in doing so, there is a class of decisions that
>>must be made by the WG that fall outside the (current) definition
>>of "Technical" and that should have been included.
>>At 20:26 06/09/2006, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>>> I vote NO but will change my vote to YES if the following
>>>changes are made.
>>>1. In Section 220.127.116.11 (Chair's Function) change "output
>>>of the Working Group" to "either a PAR or a draft." The phrase
>>>documents" is too vague for my taste. Since those are the two output
>>>documents of a working group I think it is better to list them
>>>use such a vague phrase.
>>>2. In Section 18.104.22.168.1 drop the sentence "Non-technical
>>>when allowed, are determined in accordance with parliamentary
>>>procedure." Once again the phrase "parliamentary procedure" is
>>>vague. If the working groups want to describe how they hold these
>>>non-technical motions using specific language that would be fine, but
>>>this vague statement does not work.
>>>3. In Section 22.214.171.124.1 drop the phrase "at least." A
>>>well defined and does not require that phrase, since it is included
>>>within the definition.
>>> Just one observation. In this document the section entitled
>>>"Chair's Function" is numbered 126.96.36.199, but that section number is
>>>used later. I thin there is a small typo in the section number.
>>>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>>>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J.
>>>Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:16 PM
>>>Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting
>>>Dear EC members,
>>>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot
>>>'WG Voting Procedures'. This ballot was approved at the Friday July
>>>21st, 2006 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the
>>>meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in
>>>attached ballot document.
>>>Ballot Duration: 9/3/2006 - 10/3/2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
>>>WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
>>>groups, and invite them to comment through you. Please direct any
>>>comments on this revision to the reflector, myself, and Al Petrick (
>>>email@example.com) for collection. A ballot resolution
>>>will be scheduled for sometime prior to the November 2006 Plenary
>>>Thanks & Regards,
>>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>>BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
>>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>>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.