Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
If I recall correctly, I get to say I told you so! I believe I raised
this specific issue when we were adding the 75% approval to stand for
re-election and there was no interest in clarifying the text at that
time, and we didn't get around to it in the following two years.
I support Mat on his opinion that the LMSC Chair has latitude to
interpret the rules, but I do not agree that he has final say. We can
attempt a group interpretation or an endorsement of a Chair's ruling,
but I do not believe either has any final weight. Participants have the
right of appeal, and the appeal process is the final interpretation.
I understand other EC members opinion that the intent was that someone
elected at the March 2000 plenary could stand for election for a fifth
term without 75% vote. I also believe we have precedent of individuals
being elected to a fifth term (though I have no idea of the dates of the
first and fifth election closing plenary dates). SA governing documents
define eligibility in number of terms (with length of term defined).
Unfortunately, I believe that if our rule was tested with an appeal, an
appeal panel could go either way, with the intent, or with the literal
interpretation (to the day). The literal interpretation could be from
beginning of service (immediately after the March 2000 closing EC
meeting) until the election (or would the panel look at the required
confirmation during the closing EC meeting).
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman, Matthew J.
(US SSA)
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:26 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: 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...
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Engineering Fellow
BAE Systems - Network Systems (NS)
Office: +1 973.633.6344
Cell: +1 973.229.9520
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
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
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Steve -
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!).
Regards,
Tony
At 22:23 29/10/2007, Shellhammer, Steve wrote:
>Tony,
>
> Tony, I commend you for asking in advance since the rules are
>vague.
>
> 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
rules
>going forward so less interpretation of vague statements is necessary.
>
> Mat, do we have a method of agreeing on interpretation of
vague
>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
member
>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. :)
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>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
>To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>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?
>
>Regards,
>Tony
>
>----------
>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.