|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
Tony, I like the changes you have made and would suggest there are a few more small changes that will reduce the ambiguity even further. I have added my changes to those you have proposed. -Bob -----Original Message----- From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:34 AM To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change Following the interesting discussion on the email exploder on this topic, I decided to take a shot at hacking the P&P text into something rather more watertight and hopefully rather closer to what we intended to say in the first place. As with all of these things, the closer you look at the existing text the more problems come out of the woodwork. So in addition to the initial problem of interpreting the number of years vs number of terms of office ambiguity, I came across the following problems: 1) Although the existing text specifies when terms of office come to an end, it only indirectly specifies what happens next. 2) The wording around the 10-year rule is sufficiently ambiguous that it could be interpreted as requiring someone that has spent 10 years as Vice Chair to undergo the 75% vote before standing for Chair (and vice versa). I know Bob Grow disagrees with me on this interpretation, but suffice it to say that if I wrote something similar in a draft standard I would expect to get comments requiring the ambiguity to be removed. 3) The text doesn't make it clear what question the WG should vote on in cases where the 75% approval is required. I.e., it says that something needs to be approved by 75%, but not what that something is. 4) (this is probably the worst of the lot, and in my view, makes it essential that we have a clear interpretation next week) The wording around the 75% vote does not specify what "a 75% vote of the WG" means. Hence, it is open to at least the following interpretations, some of which might be terribly difficult to achieve: - 75% of the people in the room (members and observers). - 75% of the participants in the WG (voting members and observers, whether in the room or not). - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or not). - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room. - Same as a technical vote (75% of those voting members voting Approve and Disapprove). - Impossible to determine, as a WG is a single entity, so a 75% of it isn't a meaningful concept. - Some other interpretation that I haven't thought of. I have attached a marked-up version of the relevant sections that I believe fixes the problems that I have identified. My intention would be to use this as the basis for a rules change ballot. 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.
chair reelection rules change (O'Hara comments).doc