RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Carl,
I think we are in agreement.
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:10 AM
To: 'Matthew Sherman'; Stevenson, Carl R (Carl);
'pat_thaler@agilent.com'; billq@attglobal.net
Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Mat,
I am only talking about regularly-scheduled WG interims ...
not TG meetings.
The WG interims are scheduled (and noticed) well in advance,
so I guess my view is "If you don't participate, at least
don't get in the way of progress".
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'; 'pat_thaler@agilent.com';
> billq@attglobal.net
> Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
> Carl,
>
> I guess I'm agree with you, with the caveat that I wouldn't
> want it to go
> too far. For instance, some 802.11 task groups I believe
> have held separate
> "interim" meeting from the working group. Sometimes, working
> groups may
> quickly schedule multiple interims between plenaries to get
> the work done.
> I wouldn't want these cases to suddenly turn into plenary
> sessions. I think
> that minimally, the full WG needs to be present, and there
> needs to be a
> substantial notification cycle (as there is today).
>
> Mat
>
> Matthew Sherman
> Technology Consultant
> Communications Technology Research
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> Room B255, Building 103
> 180 Park Avenue
> P.O. Box 971
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:01 AM
> To: 'Matthew Sherman'; Stevenson, Carl R (Carl);
> 'pat_thaler@agilent.com'; billq@attglobal.net
> Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
> Mat,
>
> I guess that's what I'm implying ... that the distinction
> between a plenary and an interim has become somewhat
> artificial as far as (at least some of) the WGs is concerned.
>
> I am inclined to hold the view that "If you're not interested
> and dedicated enough to participate and do the work, your lack
> of attendance should not prevent the "worker bees" from making
> progress.
>
> Carl
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:46 AM
> > To: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'; 'pat_thaler@agilent.com';
> > billq@attglobal.net
> > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> > Carl,
> >
> > Just an off the cuff thought. Why can't we have working
> group plenary
> > meetings that are at times independent of the 802 plenary? I
> > get concerned
> > about treating every interim as being exempt from quorum
> > requirements. If a
> > working group wants to designate specific meetings as
> > "plenary" meetings
> > without the rest of 802 present, perhaps this should be
> > allowed. However, I
> > think there should be such a formal declaration well in
> > advance, the same
> > way as is currently done for plenary meetings.
> >
> > Mat
> >
> > Matthew Sherman
> > Technology Consultant
> > Communications Technology Research
> > AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> > Room B255, Building 103
> > 180 Park Avenue
> > P.O. Box 971
> > Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> > Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> > Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> > EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:26 AM
> > To: 'pat_thaler@agilent.com'; billq@attglobal.net
> > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >
> > SEC Colleagues,
> >
> > I tend to be of the view that the distinction
> > between interims and plenaries has become somewhat
> > artificial and outdated as far as WGs go ...
> >
> > Yes, attendance is higher at plenaries ... but,
> > at least in the wireless WGs, attendance at
> > interims is substantial. The people who are
> > dedicated to advancing the work (and who are
> > doing the bulk of it) are the ones who take the
> > time and expend the money and effort to attend
> > the interims.
> >
> > I am inclined to believe that those who are
> > really doing the bulk of the work should not
> > be held back by those who are not dedicated
> > enough to attend the interims.
> >
> > I think there should be a way to allow work to
> > progress at interims, even if attendance is somewhat
> > short of a quorum (based on total voters), based on
> > the concept I've outlined above ... that those who
> > are doing the bulk of the work should not be held back
> > by those who are not the real "worker bees"
> > (and ultimately frustrated ... something I've seen
> > of late when this issue has prevented progress)?
> >
> > I haven't formulated an actual proposal on how to
> > accomplish this, but simply want to try to stimulate
> > some thought and discussion in this direction.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:45 PM
> > > To: billq@attglobal.net; 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I agree, though the concept of binding ballots is a bit difficult.
> > > I believe they could authorize a non-Plenary meeting to do the
> > > sort of things authorized for a task force meeting - e.g. work
> > > on ballot comment resolution, prepare a draft for recirculation
> > > ballot - things that are reversable at the plenary and material
> > > being prepared for working group letter ballots. If they couldn't
> > > hold this kind of meeting, one couldn't hold a task force meeting.
> > >
> > > The hard part is for a chair to draw the line on what can be
> > > done at an interim and what can't. We have been doing it in
> > > 802.3 for task force meetings for years, are fairly conservative
> > > on how much rope we give a task force and have a pretty good
> > > feel from experience on where the boundaries are, but it is hard
> > > to transfer judgement.
> > >
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:15 PM
> > > To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
> > > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > > Subject: 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
> > >
> >
>