RE: Issues with DASC/WG P&P for DASC-SC to resolve

From: Peter Ashenden <peter@ashenden.com.au>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:58:26 PDT

Jim,

Thank you for raising this procedural issue. Please allow me to clarify
some aspects of procedure and suggest some alternatives so that you can
formalize your motion.

The DASC and its subgroups operate under parliamentary procedure based on
Robert's Rules of Order. They are also bound by the various operating
procedures documents that apply and that are listed in our procedures
documents.

Robert's Rules specify procedures for conduct of meetings, including
procedures for making, debating and voting on motions. The rules for formal
meetings may be somewhat ponderous, so there are "shortcuts" for conduct of
informal meetings to expedite proceedings. These shortcuts, however, do not
impede a member's right to participate and be heard.

It has been the practice of DASC and its subgroups to conduct much of their
business my email using email distribution lists. The (perhaps tacit)
understanding is that such email dialogs constitute a form of ongoing and
distributed meeting, and that the rules of informal meetings should apply.

Perhaps one approach to addressing the issue you raise would be to formalize
this understanding. In that case, parliamentary wording, such as "I move
that ...," "I second the motion" or "I move the Previous Question," would
have the weight you seek. It would also clarify the role of the Chair in
email dialogs, namely, to moderate the discussion and to follow
parliamentary procedure for informal meetings. Such an approach would be in
keeping with our Quality Metrics (see www.dasc.org).

If this approach is seen as desirable, we might formalize it in the
procedures documents, as you suggest, or simply by a resolution of the
committee. In the latter case, it would become one of our Standing Rules
(that is, the collection of resolutions deciding upon ongoing action).
Would a motion to that effect conform with your intention?

Regards,

Peter Ashenden
DASC Chair

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Lewis [mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 30 April 2004 00:37
> To: stds-dasc-sc@eda.org
> Cc: Peter Ashenden
> Subject: Issues with DASC/WG P&P for DASC-SC to resolve
> 
> 
> Peter and Members of DASC-SC,
> I would like to make a motion to revise DASC/DASC-SC/WG
> P&P to clearly define what DASC considers to be an
> acceptable format for the following procedural issues:
> 
>    1) motion for call for discussion of an issue/proposal
>    2) motion for call for vote on an issue/proposal
> 
> I have been working in IEEE/DASC standards groups since 
> 1997/1998.  I have to be honest, procedurally I don't know if 
> I could distinguish an acceptable format for these from an 
> unacceptable one.  Each group seems to have its own flavor of 
> doing things and I am ok with this, however, I also have 
> Alex's position to deal with:
> 
> > YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR ANYTHING, AND
> > PROCEED WITH WHAT I RECOMMENDED.
> > HIS MOTION (NOT YET WELL FROMALIZED,
> > DISCUSSED, OR AMMENDED) PROPOSES ...
> 
> excerpted from email that was cross-posted to stds-dasc-sc:
>     >>From: Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:hxml@pacbell.net]
>     >>Sent: Thursday, 29 April 2004 21:15
>     >>Subject: Re: [vhdlsynth] Status of P1076.3 + call for
>     >>discussion of WG options
> 
> Since it is not correctly formalized for Alex's working
> group, Alex chooses to ignore it.  This has happened in
> the 1076.3 for my motion for a call for vote, it has also 
> happened for proposals for standards revisions.
> 
> My point is not whether Alex has a correct position or not.
> My point is that all working groups have their own
> format and it takes some effort on the part of the working 
> group participant to get an item in the correct procedural format.
> 
> I don't have issue that a working group establishes their
> own format for these things, however, I would like there
> also to be a "DASC" approved format for these items that
> the working group must also accept as a procedurally
> correct format.
> 
> Frankly, I am tired of being belittled for not following
> a procedural format for which I cannot find any
> documentation.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Jim Lewis
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Lewis
> Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
> SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
> 1-503-590-4787
> 
> Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
Received on Thu Apr 29 20:58:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 20:58:25 PDT