Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: 802.16 Meeting #0: May 10-12 in Boulder


Geoff's email reminds me of something you should consider.  There are two
methods currently used within 802 to grant voting membership (and the rules
allow the chair the option of which to use).  

  Grant voting membership to a person when that person has met the
attendence requirements  (I believe 802.5 uses this one.)

  Grant voting membership to a person who requests it if that person has
also met the attendence requirements.  (802.3 and 802.12 use this method.)

I strongly recommend that you institute the latter method.  Voting
membership confers responsibilities as well as rights and one should give
the potential voter the choice of whether to assume those responsibilities
vs remaining an observer.  

How would one execute this?
For the initial voting meeting explain the rights and responsibilities of a
voter.  On the attendence sign-in book, provide a way for each attendee to
indicate that they wish to become a voter.  This could be just a check-off
box.  Better might be a statement like "I wish to assume the rights and
responsibilities of voting membership" followed by a spot for signature.

For subsequent meetings, the proceedure in 802.3 for many years has been to
put up a list of those who are potential voters (they have met the
attendence requirements) a few times a plenary (perhaps Monday afternoon,
Tuesday morning and Thursday morning) and allow those who wish voting
membership request it from the floor.  Geoff only takes the request that
way, I allowed the alternative of requesting by giving me a note to that
effect.  Geoff's method does have the advantage of emphasizing that we do
expect members to grace us with their attendence even at the beginning of
the meeting.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:49 AM
To: Roger B. Marks; THALER,PAT (HP-Roseville,ex1)
Subject: RE: 802.16 Meeting #0: May 10-12 in Boulder


I concur with Pat's recommendation that you make the Boulder meeting an
"Interim Task Force Meeting" even if is a meeting of the whole.

In addition to the issues that Pat brings up there is also the danger of
unintended consequences of granting membership at an interm. Anybody who
walks in is a member. That will establish your number of voters and that
can have quorum consequences later on.

I think you are better off having the first WG meeting be in Montreal.
Pat's way of handling the Boulder meeting works for me.


At 11:13 AM 4/8/99 -0600, THALER,PAT (HP-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
>I'm concerned about this course of action.  I don't think you can make the
>first meeting not be the first meeting by declaration.  It is also
>from the way I'm aware of us handling it in the past.  When we formed
>802.12, the initial meeting was at an interim.  One did acquire voting
>rights by attending that meeting.  We did have some votes at that meeting.

>Because we value attendence at plenaries and want someone to be able to be
>full participant even if they can only attend our 3 plenaries per year, I
>also granted voting rights to those who attended the second meeting of
>802.12 which was it's first meeting during a plenary.  The rules do give a
>chair some latitude in extending voting ( "Membership may be
>at the discretion of the Working Group Chair (for contributors by
>correspondence or other significant contributions to the Working Group).")
>so this can be done.
>If you really don't want the interim to be the first working group meeting,
>there is one approach that occurs to me.  Some of our working groups have
>interim task force meetings without have an interim meeting of the working
>group.  To the best of my recollection, only one interim Working Group
>meeting has occurred for 802.3 in the past 14 years.  You could have
>meetings for your two task groups co-located.  Then the plenary would be
>your first Working Group meeting.  Interim work by task groups is always
>subject to review and affirmation by the Working Group.  The first two of
>your three topics certainly fit in that structure and the task forces could
>have a joint session to discuss a rules framework.  (You stated the third
>item as "To agree on a framework for Working Group rules." but I don't see
>how you can reach agreement without voting especially when the parties to
>the agreement have not yet been identified.)  At interim meetings of
>when the task forces met together, we considered it a "task force of the
>whole" (like the parlimentary procedure concept of a committee of the
>whole).  Any decisions made in such a context were subject to confirmation
>at the next working group meeting.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roger B. Marks []
>Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 11:16 AM
>Subject: 802.16 Meeting #0: May 10-12 in Boulder
>According to 802 rules
><>, "All persons
>participating in the initial meeting of the Working Group become voting
>members of the Working Group." In the interpretation of this rule, the
>initial meeting of 802.16 shall be Meeting #1, which takes place July 6-8
>part of the July 5-9 IEEE 802 Plenary Meeting in Montreal
><>. The May 10-12 meeting has
>designated Meeting #0 to recognize that it is not an official voting
>meeting; all votes taken at this meeting will need to be affirmed at
| Geoffrey O. Thompson                    |
| Chair IEEE 802.3                        |
| Nortel Networks, Inc.  M/S SC5-02       |
| 4401 Great America Parkway              |
| P. O. Box 58185                         |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185  USA         |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339                  |
| Fax:   +1 408 988 5525                  |
| E-Mail:  |
| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at   |