RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
I have to jump in here, too. I have very strong feelings about the quorum
issue. It is not just about making progress versus having to wait for 802
plenary cycles. It is about meeting (at least in part) the "open and
public" standards development process that helps to keep the IEEE and LMSC
out of anti-trust hot water. Before we expend too many more minutes on
this, I would like to have a legal opinion from the IEEE legal staff as to
the ability of LMSC or any of its WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules
of Order is such a significant way.
I am completely against reducing the quorum requirement. Our process is all
about achieving consensus. Allowing a group to make what can be significant
decisions with much less than half the voting membership participating is a
road to longer, not shorter periods for developing positions and standards,
in my opinion.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:04 PM
To: carlstevenson@agere.com; mjsherman@research.att.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org;
stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Carl,
Assuming the proposal includes a quorum requirement and is
specific to RR-TAG (or 802 makes a decision when a TAG is
created on whether they use that rule), then it seems
a reasonable proposal.
TAGs can be created for many purposes and not all of those
purposes have the need that RR-TAG does for fast turn around
of unexpected (or uncontrollable) events. Some might also
not have the size and regular participants to make this work.
I think this rule should only apply where that special need exists.
(If one thinks that need is not necessary to justify the rule,
then 802.1 would certainly meet "modest size group of regular
participants so why would it be a TAG rule?)
A quorum rule helps ensure that the chair makes a reasonable
attempt to schedule the meeting and get notice out well enough
that people had the ability to attend. (When we add it to
the rules it will apply to chairs after you so trusting your
judgement alone is not enough. Also, having reasonable safeguards
in the rules helps protect the TAG Chair and 802 SEC against
accusations of mis-use if a controversy arises.)
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:24 AM
To: 'Matthew Sherman'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: 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
> >>
>