RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Dear Roger,
I think that the amount of advance time before the meeting is less
important than the meeting (and its range of business) being
approved by the working group.
If a Working Group can authorize a committee (which we often call
a task force) to conduct business between plenaries, then it can
authorize a "committee of the whole" to do the same thing. When
we do that for the task force (or a study group), the charter
of work they can do is fairly clear - bounded by a PAR (or to
develop a PAR). Any decisions made to alter that charter (e.g.
changing the objectives for the PAR) are subject to review
and approval or rejection during the working group session
at the plenary (or at an interim with a quorum). If a Working
Group is going to do something similar then I believe it should
similarly bound the scope when authorizing the meeting.
I would alter the your text to
"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
established well in advance. Work may be conducted at interim Working
Group sessions whose program of work, date and location are agreed to
by vote at a plenary at least one month in advance of the meeting.
Technical decisions made without a quorum at such interims are
subject to review and modification at the plenary unless the
Working Group has preauthorized a decision such as forwarding
to Working Group ballot."
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:31 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Dear SEC,
I think that we should think about revising the 802 rules to clarify
the quorum situation for WG Interim Sessions. I think that WGs need
to know how to take actions that won't be later called into question
on quorum grounds. The extra uncertainty isn't good for anyone.
I think we have too many continuing question marks on this issue.
Some WGs have no Interim Sessions, though their Task Forces do meet.
In other cases, Interim WG meetings are held between all LMSC
Plenaries.
Also, some WG's will arrange for a vote, at the WG Plenary, to
authorize a WG to meet and transact business, with our without a
quorum, at an upcoming Interim. My understanding has been that not
all SEC members accept the legitimacy of this practice.
We also face questions of what to in the absence of a quorum. Some go
by Robert, who says "The only business that can be transacted in the
absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a quorum, to fix
the time to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take a recess."
Others are more liberal, to varying degrees.
Then we have the question of when the quorum applies. Does the Chair
need to check for it? Is it assumed, unless a quorum call arises?
What if no quorum call arises and someone later, after the session,
challenges the presence of a quorum? Does a quorum at any point in a
session, or in a meeting, suffice to cover the entire session?
I'd like to think about a rules change to resolve the problem. First,
however, I'd like to probe where people stand on this issue to see
what kind of rules change would be likely to pass.
To get things started, here is what I would propose. In 5.1.4.2.1, I
would change:
"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
established well in advance. A quorum is required at other Working
Group meetings."
to:
"No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
established well in advance. The same is true of other Working Group
sessions whose date and location are announced at least three months
in advance. In other cases, Working Groups are authorized to meet and
transact business. However, no technical vote at such a meeting is
valid unless quorum is established immediately before, after, or
during the vote, or unless Working Group action without a quorum has
been previously authorized by the Working Group."
Could you support a change like this?
I'm personally open to other ideas, but I would like an unambiguous
LMSC policy.
Thanks,
Roger