Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
I have always held that the Chair has final say on P&P interpretations.
I believe that is per Roberts rather than the rules, but I'm pretty tied
up and haven't made time to look it up...
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
That question (how do we agree on an interpretation) was also at the
back of my mind. I would be fascinated to know what the answer is (or
even if there is one!).
At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
> Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are
> I was not around when the phrase "greater than 8 years" was
>introduced in the P&P so I can't speak to the intent. Cleary there are
>(at least) two possible interpretations of "greater than 8 years,"
>1. Eight years plus one day
>2. Nine years
> Clearly the safest interpretation is #1.
> I think we need to be a little more careful in writing our
>going forward so less interpretation of vague statements is necessary.
> Mat, do we have a method of agreeing on interpretation of
>rules? I know that sounds silly but Tony asked a good question and I
>don't know how the EC answers such a question. Is it based on EC
>consensus? That seems to be what we are doing. Maybe that is the best
>way. Does Paul make an interpretation? Does Mat? It seems the best
>method is some form of consensus of the EC. We are kind of a special
>group since we write the rules and also interpret the rules. We are
>both the Legislature and the Judicial system. :)
>From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
>[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
>Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:00 AM
>Subject: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
>I have a question for clarification of the current P&P with regard to
>the wording in 7.2.2. It states:
>"An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given WG
>for a total of more than
>eight years in that office may not run for election to that office
>again, unless the question of
>allowing that individual to run for election again is approved by a
>75% vote of the WG one
>plenary in advance of that election."
>I am now in my 8th year as 802.1 Chair, having first been appointed
>Chair at the end of the March 2000 Plenary session. So when the
>elections are run in March 2008, I will have been Chair for not quite
>8 years, as the appointment occurs at the end of the session (see
>7.1.2). I therefore interpret the above as meaning that I don't need
>a 75% approval vote of my WG in November to allow me to run for
>re-election in March. Is my interpretation correct?
>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.