|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
You called them "rules"
On 8/21/13 11:13 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
Our discussion was that we should spend some time to update these rules, but
It has been Paul's custom to ask approval of the Chair's Guidelines but this is only his custom, not required by our rules nor by precedent from earlier chairs (I was there at the time). To attempt to raise them to the "level" of "rules" "requiring approval by the EC" is to go beyond the original intent.
The original intent was ONLY to provide a reminder to the chair of how he ordinarily handled decisions that were in his discretion to make and to document that to the rest of the EC. The purpose was NOT to restrict his discretionary ability to react to the needs of any situation, only to provide some guidance to him for consistency on the basis that management by surprise is a bad idea.
In spite of Paul's desire to formalize a broader level of support for the guidelines, thereby institutionalizing bureaucratic inflation with respect to them, I remain committed to the original concept. So, as you may gather, I have no difficulty with "exactly what they are".
I would have no trouble putting some text to the following effect in the OM:
"In order to maintain some consistency of operation, the Sponsor Chair may, at his discretion, maintain a public document to be call the "Chair's Guidelines". This document will give the reader a hint at how the chair will be expected to deal with situations described therein. This is considered useful for recurring situations and to avoid managment which appears to be capricious. The scope of the document is to be limited to matters of decision that are within the powers of the Sponsor Chair."
-------- Original Message --------
Geoff While the Chair's guidelines are guidelines, the document is approved by majority vote of the EC. BTW: I didn't say that they are rules, I said that they are guidelines. However, in some cases, however, what is documented in the Chair's Guidelines is the result of an EC motion. The CG has occupied a strange place in our rules hierarchy for some time now. Perhaps it is time to decide exactly what they are? James Gilb On 08/21/2013 08:12 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote: > James- > > My opinion is that, since the purpose of this motion is to override the > chair's guidelines, this should be a straw poll, not a formal motion. > The chairs guidelines are not hard and fast. They are only documented > so that they can be consulted for consistency but the chair is not bound > by them. > > I do realize that Mr. Nikolich wants to have the support of the EC and > not do things by fiat. That is all well and good but this stuff is > within his power alone and he does have the power to change for what he > considers good reason. > > That he wants to know whether he has the support of the EC before he > breaks precedent is polite of him, but procedurally unnecessary. > > Therefore your characterization of them as "rules" is inaccurate. They > are guidelines. Paul should be the one to revise them (although it > would perfectly reasonable to have his amanuensis do the writing at his > direction). > > If we want to have "guidelines" that are the consensus of the body of > the EC that would be fine but we haven't done that. If we did, they > wouldn't be "rules". Rules belong in the By-laws and the Ops Man. > > Best regards, > > Geoff > > On 8/21/13 5:49 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote: >> Roger >> >> Yes, the intention is to override the Chair's Guidelines, which, not >> surprisingly, are guidelines an not rules. >> >> My explanation was not clear as it should have stated that the purpose >> was to override those guidelines. Its effect, if passed, would be to >> override the guidelines for the March 2014 meeting in Beijing. >> >> My understanding of the motion is that it gives the Sponsor Chair or >> his delegate more latitude in defining this for the March 2013 meeting. >> >> Our discussion was that we should spend some time to update these >> rules, but in the mean time, we should have an exception for March >> 2013 (as we are deeply in the hole for this meeting as it stands now). >> >> James Gilb >> >> On 08/21/2013 12:14 PM, Roger Marks wrote: >>> James, >>> >>> The motion says that some guidelines "should be aligned" for March >>> 2014. Could you help me understand which are the guidelines that are >>> problematic? Is this intending to override "2.6 Commercialism at >>> meetings" of the Chair's Guidelines, or something else? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Roger >>> >>> >>> On 2013/08/20, at 06:46 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote: >>> >>>> Dear EC members >>>> >>>> The Sponsor Chair has delegated the conduct of an EC electronic >>>> ballot on the following motion to me. >>>> >>>> Moved: Gilb Second: Thaler >>>> >>>> PURPOSE OF THE MOTION One time "softening" of >>>> anti-commercialization rules for Plenary Sponsor for the March 2014 >>>> Beijing meeting. >>>> >>>> MOTION Guidelines for the March 2014 Beijing Plenary Meeting should >>>> be aligned to the current guidelines for the IETF* with respect to >>>> allowable commercial presence and activities at a Plenary by a >>>> major meeting sponsor/underwriter. Details of implementation are >>>> left to the discretion of the 802 Chair or his designated >>>> representative. >>>> >>>> *Sponsor Benefits such as: - Meeting Program Listing - Meeting >>>> signage (e.g. at breaks there will be signs out that say this break >>>> was sponsored by ...) - Logo on meeting announcements for that >>>> plenary - Logo on Meeting Web page (with link to corporate web >>>> page?) - Badge lanyards and/or sponsor logo on badges (we do this >>>> for interims) - Sponsor Literature/Visual Display area (e. g. a few >>>> tables set up, usually somewhere near the registration area where >>>> the sponsors can hand out some corporate literature and/or they >>>> some trinkets with their logo) >>>> >>>> Start of ballot: 20 August 2013 Close of ballot: 30 August, 2013, >>>> 21:00 PDT >>>> >>>> Early close: As stated in the "Voting rules" subclause of the IEEE >>>> LMSC OM, "For urgent matters once sufficient response is received >>>> to clearly decide a matter, the ballot may be closed early." >>>> >>>> As our plenary meeting in March 2014 is fast approaching, this is >>>> an urgent matter as we seek to find Sponsors to offset the cost of >>>> this meeting. >>>> >>>> James Gilb >>>> >>>> ---------- 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.