Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures

Mat -

I vote Disapprove.


There is something screwed up about the subclause numbering (there are two 
instances of and one of them precedes

Substantive issues:

As Steve Shellhammer has pointed out, and as amplified in my response to 
his comments, the whole issue of Technical vs Procedural in this set of 
rules is somewhat screwed up.

Firstly, it makes no sense at all to say that the Chair decides procedural 
(sorry, non-technical) issues, and then to go on to say that when the Chair 
decides to use the WG's help in determining a procedural issue by taking a 
vote of the WG, that it should be done in a particular way. For example, if 
I decide that an issue is procedural (choosing the venue for the next 
interim, maybe), but that I want the WG to assist me in that decision by 
running a straw poll, I don't want the P&P to impose rules on how that 
straw poll is conducted, and I absolutely DO NOT want that informal 
mechanism suddenly to be subject to parliamentary procedure. That is just 
plain nuts. Either an issue is procedural, and the Chair gets to decide the 
outcome (including taking advice/help from the WG, if he/she feels it 
appropriate, and in any way that he/she may choose), or it is not 
procedural, and the WG gets to vote, and with the outcome subject to 75% 
approval. So introducing the concept of some other kind of "non-technical 
motion" into the vocabulary, surrounded with wooly words about them being 
subject to parliamentary procedure, isn't helpful and simply allows us to 
continue to get wrapped around this particular axle.

Secondly, as I pointed out in response to Steve, the set of issues that 
require a 75% approval certainly include drafts and PARs, but is very much 
NOT restricted to those two items.

So, what I would like to see an alternative approach along these lines:

- That we only ever talk about one form of "Voting in meetings" - and that 
one form requires 75% approval to pass.

- That the set of things that we absolutely require to be decided by a WG 
vote (75% approval) gets clearly stated, along with the principle that lies 
behind it, so that if we've missed anything from the set then it is as 
clear as possible how the set would be populated.

- That the question of how the Chair might run a non-technical "motion", or 
any other kind of procedure for that matter, in order to assist in the 
determination of a procedural issue, doesn't get discussed in the P&P at 
all, as it is all covered under the blanket statement that "The Chair 
decides procedural issues".

If I get time in the next few days I will propose some wording changes.


At 04:16 04/09/2006, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>Dear EC members,
>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot titled
>'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 the
>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 (
> for collection.  A ballot resolution teleconference
>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.