Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
Colleagues:
I opted to eliminate all of the previous discussion from this message,
but I may reference some of it.
Though I support much in this ballot, I vote Disapprove.
The primary textual problems are 7.4.2.3 and one issue related to
7.4.2.1. I also vote disapprove because changes in this area are
premature based on active work at the IEEE-SA and IEEE levels.
1. Disapprove, General -- There is currently a Voting ad-hoc committee
working to refine IEEE requirements for IEEE-SA standards development
needs. One item of discussion is if our letter ballot process is
consistent with IEEE Bylaws. LMSC representatives at the Standards
Board have argued that it is because it really isn't a "vote". The
action is taken by the LMSC EC which is consistent with IEEE Bylaws
requirements for electronic process.
This work also could also affect quorum and "voting in a meeting"
requirements. Though the major issue is with electronic voting which
includes our "letter ballots".
We should wait to see what is resolve here before we start fixing
language about what votes are required, the process required for those
votes and the language used to describe them.
2. Disapprove, p.2, l.4 -- I agree with others that 7.4.2.3 is totally
messed up. The lack of parallel construction (issues v. motions) is
very broken. Should use parallel construction.
3. p.2, l.3 -- While these changes attempt to remove the non-parallel
procedural and technical, the use of procedural was useful in refining
what is appropriately considered non-technical.
4. Disapprove, p.2, l.4 -- I agree with others that attempting to
define "technical" is an ill-advised "rat hole". I could live with
language that is inclusive rather than definitive "(e.g., actions that
affect the content of a draft)".
5. Disapprove, p.2, l.3 -- The old language allowed the Chair to decide
a procedural issue, to put a procedural issue to some kind of decision
process consistent with open, fair and democratic process, or even (as
some might wish to be the only alternative) to be decided via motion and
Robert's Rules of Order.
6. Disapprove, p.2, l.15 -- The added second sentence to 7.2.4.2.1 give
far too much weight to RROR as it is now the recommend guide for
parliamentary procedure. Remove it.
7. p.2, l.28 -- Inconsistent capitalization of Voter. Make consistent.
8. p.4, l.4 -- With changes, should also include electronic ballots.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:16 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Procedures
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 (
apetrick@widefi.com) for collection. A ballot resolution teleconference
will be scheduled for sometime prior to the November 2006 Plenary
Session.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE Systems Network Enabled Solutions (NES)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
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.