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

FYI: Here is the result of a motion at the 802.16 Working Group  
Opening Plenary on Monday afternoon:

Motion: "Per the third paragraph of section 7.2.2 of the IEEE 802  
Policies and Procedures, to authorize and allow Roger Marks to run  
for re-election as Chair of the IEEE 802.16 Working Group in the  
election of March 2008."
Motion by: Phil Barber
Second by: Carl Eklund

Passed by 171/0/1

On Nov 11, 2007, at 03:31 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:

> Bob-
> 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.
> Geoff
> 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:
>>> Tony/Colleagues-
>>> 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 below):
>>> >       - 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,
>>> Geoff
>>> 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.
>>> Regards,
>>> Tony

This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.