Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Pat,
I was trying to comment on the legality under the current LMSC rules of
the practice of a WG voting to authorize a non-Plenary meeting of the WG
to conduct binding ballots without a quorum.
I was not trying to comment on the proposed rule change.
Thanks,
wlq
"THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I am confused by your message. The discussion is about changing 802 quorum
> requirements rather than about overriding 802 quorum requirements.
>
> Pat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:15 PM
> To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
> Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
> All,
>
> The question of a WG meeting without a quorum and that does not occur
> during an 802 Plenary week being able to pass motions is currently dealt
> with I believe by the combination of Sections 5.1.4.2.1 and 5.1.4.6.
>
> 5.1.4.2.1 states that a WG quorum must be present at such a meeting.
>
> 5.1.4.6 states that the LMSC rules take precedence of WG rules.
>
> As a result, a WG may not override the quorum requirement for a WG
> meeting that does not occur during an 802 Plenary week as that would be
> in conflict with the LMSC rules which take precedence.
>
> wlq
>
> pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> >
> > 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