RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
I also like Roger's suggestion ... in fact, it
is pretty much precicely where I hoped that this
discussion on WG meeting quorums would go when I
made my intial comments.
As a "sidebar," I would comment is that, for the 802.18
RR-TAG, I am intending to propose the ability (through
a TAG rules change proposal at the July SEC meeting),
for teleconference meetings to be held when required
(with reasonable notice, noting that I expect the RR-TAG
to be a modest sized group of regular participants for
the most part).
The reason for this is simple:
The Radio Regulatory environment is sometimes quite
dynamic, relative to even 2 month meeting cycles, and
I can't ask the FCC for an extension of time on comment
periods too frequently, or I will "wear out my welcome."
(Had I not gotten the extension of time, we would not
have been able to respond by the original filing deadline
to the ARRL's Petiton for Reconsideration ...)
I would hasten to point out 2 things:
1) I don't have a burning desire to make more work
for myself and others by calling such teleconference
meetings unless they are necessary to respond to
regulatory proceedings in a timely manner.
and
2) As was the case a week or so ago, the output
document will be subject to a vote of the SEC
to become an "IEEE 802 position" ... and an 802.18
Position statement would be subject to a minimum
of a 5 day review by the SEC, according to LMSC rules.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:51 AM
> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
> Roger,
>
> I like what you suggest.
>
> 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: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:25 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
> I agree with Carl. In 802.16, our sessions are similar whether or not
> the SEC is meeting the same week. The agenda is basically the same,
> and the turnout is similar. Over the last eight sessions at 802
> plenaries, we averaged 119 participants; for our last eight interims,
> the average was 104. ["Participants" are those who met the "75%
> presence" test.]
>
> It's important to remember _why_ we treat a Working Group meeting
> differently depending on whether or not the SEC meets in conjunction
> with it. The rules gives us the answer explicitly: "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."
>
> 802.16 meets every two months according to schedule, with the "time
> and place is established well in advance." It's to meet this type of
> schedule that I am suggesting that we change the rules to apply the
> same advance-notice test to _all_ WG meetings, regardless of whether
> or not they are in conjunction with an LMSC plenary.
>
> Also, in special cases, interim meetings may crop up without much
> advance notice. We ought to have a rule to cover them too.
>
> Here is a new version of my proposed rules change. I have tried to
> incorporate the concerns I have heard on the reflector:
>
> "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with an LMSC
> Plenary session since the Plenary session date and location are
> 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. Work may also be conducted at interim Working Group
> sessions whose program of work, date, and location are authorized,
> with at least 75% approval, in a Working Group vote or letter ballot
> at least thirty days in advance. This authorization may also include
> the empowerment of the interim session to act without a quorum on
> specific issues, such as forwarding a draft to Working Group Letter
> Ballot."
>
> Roger
>
>
> At 9:25 AM -0400 02/06/06, Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:
> >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
> >>
>