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

Re: [802SEC] Chair re-election - proposed interpretation/rules change


Good point.
We should stipulate that it has to be a vote by count.

For my case, (without regard to whether or not I can vote in the EC) I 
would not support the continuation of a chair who brought in a vote by 
acclamation in alleged satisfaction of this criteria.


At 05:20 AM 11/11/2007 , Bob Heile wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, where does a vote by acclimation (or would it be 
>unanimous consent in this case) fit into the scheme of things?
>At 02:32 PM 11/10/2007 -0800, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>I agree with Tony that the language needs to be tightened up.
>>While I hesitate to have "special" voting rules instead of just referring 
>>to one of our existing procedures, I believe there is a fatal flaw in 
>>what Tony has proposed.
>>Our original intention was to have term limits be the default situation. 
>>The 75% vote was intended to allow things to be overridden by a highly 
>>affirmative action (a principle which I support). I believe Tony's 
>>proposal waters that down significantly in its current proposed form.
>>The problem of 75% of Y/(Y+N) is that those not voting are weight in the 
>>affirmative. In this particular case (a) the bias is in the opposite of 
>>our alleged default and (b) it takes a lot of courage to stick your hand 
>>up to say you hate the current chair (hard enough to brash American, 
>>effectively impossible for some other cultures).
>>Therefore, I propose that the method of vote should be (from Tony's list 
>> >       - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>I acknowledge that does not solve the problem completely, voters can 
>>still abstain by leaving the room. This could be solved (perhaps) by 
>>instead using:
>> >       - 75% of the voting membership of the WG (whether in the room or 
>> not).
>>There is a problem with too though. Many (most?) WGs don't have anything 
>>near 100% of the voting members show up at a plenary. This effectively 
>>raises the bar significantly (too far in my opinion). We could use 50% of 
>>the voting membership on a vote taken at the plenary but that has a 
>>potential unevenness problem between WGs.
>>Therefore, my choice remains:
>> >       - 75% of the voting membership that are present in the room.
>>Appropriate fruit for discussion during a P&P meeting
>>Best regards,
>>At 05:34 AM 11/8/2007 , Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>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.
>>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email 
>>reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.
>Bob Heile, Ph.D
>Chairman, ZigBee Alliance
>Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
>11 Louis Road
>Attleboro, MA  02703   USA
>Mobile: +1-781-929-4832
>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.