Re: [802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
All,
I strongly support Geoff's suggestions on operating constraints during the new WG startup and new membership stability period.
Roger's proposal is similar to my suggestion at the Friday EC meeting. I fully support Roger's refinement and detailing. The balance between Study Group individuals and new members after a PAR is published is very good.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 7/28/2003 4:33:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gthompso@nortelnetworks.com writes:
> All-
>
> I think this is all pretty good. My first impression (undiminished my
> nit-picking detailed analysis) is that this is good enough that we should
> go for it and see if it works.
>
> We need to, pretty carefully, come up with a list of things that the WG
> can't do until it "becomes a consensus group".
> First thoughts:
> All external (to 802) communications would have to be vetted by
> the EC.
> No new PARs or revision PARs
> No Working Group Ballots
> And possibly
> Co-locate all interims with another WG (for mentoring support).
>
> We need to think about how some other stuff needs to be handled.
> For example, can a pre-consensus group vote on objectives?
> If they do, do they need to be re-voted at membership formation time?
>
> Geoff
>
> At 09:32 AM 7/28/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>
> >Tony,
> >
> >Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> >>Roger -
> >>
> >>I think that the idea may have some potential; however, given that what
> >>you propose introduces a rather definite distinction between "voting" and
> >>"membership", I suspect that the impact in terms of changes to the rules
> >>is rather greater than you state.
> >
> >There may be some other complications, but I don't think they would be
> >hard to address. The full rights of membership do go beyond voting (see
> >5.1.3.4), so we could try to enlarge the rights of attendees in the
> >pre-membership period, but I think that the other rights could easily be
> >managed without specific P&P on the topic.
> >
> >I wouldn't want to see a pre-membership WG run a letter ballot. We should
> >add some language to prevent the initial Chair from appointing members by
> >Chair's Discretion and then sending them a letter ballot.
> >
> >By the way, we do have a lot of experience with the "no-members, everyone
> >can vote" policy, since Study Groups work that way. Note also that we
> >specifically forbid SGs from running letter ballots.
> >
> >>For example, it would be necessary to make it clear what kinds of things
> >>can and can not be voted on before there are any members, to deal with
> >>the case where the voters at the initial meeting vote to hold elections.
> >
> >I think that my proposed language ("Initial appointments shall be valid
> >until the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
> >memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for that
> >session.") is clear enough. It could be made more forceful, I guess.
> >
> >>Also, your proposal doesn't grant any credit for study group participation.
> >
> >True, and I don't think it should. Membership couldn't be granted before
> >the third session of the WG (or the fourth, if there are interims between
> >plenaries). I expect the first few sessions to be pretty important and to
> >take the WG a long way from its SG roots. Someone who wants to be a member
> >should participate in two of them. Chair's Discretion can handle any
> >special cases.
> >
> >Roger
> >
> >
> >>Regards,
> >>Tony
> >>
> >>Roger B. Marks writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Dear ExCom,
> >>>
> >>> On Friday, I had some stimulating discussions with Geoff, Jerry, and
> >>> Mark on what would be a good set of membership rules for startup WGs.
> >>> Some things said during the rules debate also played a role in my
> >>> thinking. After reviewing the current rules again, I now have a very
> >>> definite idea of a set of changes that would satisfy my concerns and
> >>> would, I believe, also satisfy the other concerns I've heard. This
> >>> proposal is simple, and it is philosophically compatible with our
> >>> existing membership rules.
> >>>
> >>> Here is my proposal:
> >>>
> >>> (a) In 5.1.3.1, delete the first sentence and the following word
> >>> ("All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working
> >>> Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,").
> >>>
> >>> (b) At the end of that first paragraph of 5.1.3.1, add the following:
> >> > "In a new WG or TAG, all registered attendees may vote until such
> >> > time as the first WG or TAG memberships are established."
> >>>
> >>> (c) In 5.1.2, change "Initial appointments, and temporary
> >>> appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals for
> >>> cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid until
> >>> the end of the next Plenary session" to:
> >>>
> >>> "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies
> >>> due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair
> >>> of the LMSC. Temporary appointments shall be valid until the end of
> >> > the next Plenary session. Initial appointments shall be valid until
> >> > the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
> >> > memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for
> >> > that session."
> >> > ============================================================
> >>>
> >>> Normally, the sequence would be:
> >>>
> >>> (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
> >>> (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
> >>> (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
> >> > (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
> >>> (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
> >>> session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
> >>> the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
> >>> confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
> >>>
> >>> Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting privileges
> >>> shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings"
> >>> (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
> >>> sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be earned
> >>> the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
> >>> members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
> >>> instead of two under the current rules.
> >>>
> >>> I submit that this system could take a lot of the
> politics out of the
> >>> WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
> >>>
> >>> I'd appreciate your thoughts.
> >>>
> >>> Roger
> >>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Tony