Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions




> -----Original Message-----
> From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:04 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.

Pat,

Thanks for your comments.

OK ... I guess I was implying that, since I expect the RR-TAG
to be a relatively small group, compared, for example, to
802.11 or 802.15, with a specialty interest, that getting
a quorum for teleconference meetings is likely not to be
a significant problem.
 
> 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.


Agreed ... 802.18 has some uniquqe requirements because of
deadlines imposed by regulatory agencies and the fact that
"when the clock starts ticking" is not predicated on 802
meeting schedules ...

> Some might also
> not have the size and regular participants to make this work.

OK ... I can't think of the situation, but you have more
experience in 802 than do I.

> I think this rule should only apply where that special need exists.

I'm fine with that if we can figure out how to meet 802.18's
needs without making the LMSC rules too convoluted.

> (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?)

As I recall, WGs and TAGs have separate sections in the rules.
I was not suggesting that the TAG rules changes apply to WGs.
(And your point that they need not/maybe should not apply to
all TAGs is well-taken ... again, I was trying to not overly
complicate the LMSC rules by having a special section for
802.18 ... maybe the teleconference provisions could be provided
for by a general rule with the caveat that the SEC would have
to authorize that method of working on a TAG by TAG basis?)
 
> 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.)

That is why I intend to propose advance notice requirements
that should be reasonable for teleconferences, where travel
is not required ... in addition to a quorum requirement.
It would be up to the Chair (me in this case) to "beat the
bushes" and make sure that a quorum was available :-)


Regards,
Carl

> 
> 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
> > >>
> > 
>