RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob,
I have a (non-legal) opinion on "the ability of LMSC or any of its
WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules of Order in such a
significant way".
If Robert's Rules were supreme, and if they demanded a majority as a
quorum, then we would be in violation three times a year already.
However:
(1) We don't run under Robert's Rules (though some WGs may choose
to). The basic LMSC rules for WGs are not a subset of Robert's Rules;
e.g.:
* "The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues."
* "The operation of the Working Group has to be balanced between
democratic procedures that reflect the desires of the Working Group
members and the Working Group Chair's responsibility to produce a
standard, recommended practice, or guideline, in a reasonable amount
of time."
(2) Robert's Rules do not demand a majority. Instead, they say, for example:
* "The quorum of any other deliberative assembly with an enrolled
membership (unless the by-laws provide for a smaller quorum) is a
majority of all the members."
* "In all ordinary societies the by-laws should provide for a quorum
as large as can be depended upon for being present at all meetings
when the weather is not exceptionally bad."
* "It has been found impracticable to accomplish the work of most
voluntary societies if no business can be transacted unless a
majority of the members is present. In large organizations, meeting
weekly or monthly for one or two hours, it is the exception when a
majority of the members is present at a meeting, and therefore it has
been found necessary to require the presence of only a small
percentage of the members to enable the assembly to act for the
organization, or, in other words, to establish a small quorum."
Roger
>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
>> >>
>>