Re: [802SEC] +++ EC Email Ballot: (early close) Motion to ease anti-commercialization rules for Plenary Sponsor for the Beijing meeting
OK, I slipped, I said guidelines earlier in the email.
Still, it would be good to clarify the status of the Chair's Guidelines,
do you want your proposed change to the OM considered at the November
On 08/22/2013 10:42 AM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
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
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
"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
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ EC Email Ballot: (early close) Motion to
ease anti-commercialization rules for Plenary Sponsor for the Beijing
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:13:40 -0700
From: James P. K. Gilb <email@example.com>
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?
On 08/21/2013 08:12 PM, Geoff Thompson wrote:
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
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
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.
On 8/21/13 5:49 PM, James P. K. Gilb wrote:
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).
On 08/21/2013 12:14 PM, Roger Marks wrote:
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?
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
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
*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,
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 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.