RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob,
I appreciate that 802.3 has a different tradition regarding interim
meetings than do the other active WGs. I think there is much to be
said for that approach, and it certainly fits within the current
rules. I hope you will also appreciate that the rules are indeed a
problem for WGs that wish to take other approaches.
Here's an example. At our May interim, 802.16 took the following actions:
*forwarding a PAR to the SEC
*initiating two WG Letter Ballots on draft standards
*approving two letters drafted by 802.18
*approving two liaison letters
*choosing the site of a future WG interim session
*approving a publicity piece
This is important and significant WG business. We would have been
seriously hampered if these issues needed to be delayed until July.
Were these decisions made by a bunch of loose cannons
unrepresentative of the WG? Hardly. 51.5% of the members attended our
March Plenary, and 49.6% attended the May interim. Had we not
previously approved a WG Letter Ballot to permit the WG "carry out
Working Group business", the rules (according to some
interpretations) would have prohibited us from doing anything but
voting to adjourn.
Is there fear among the members that our process will be highjacked
at an interim session? Hardly. The WG Letter Ballot authorizing us to
go ahead without a quorum passed by vote of 95-5. Of the five
Disapprove voters, three specifically said that their Disapprove was
based only on the fact that the Closing Plenary was on Friday instead
of Thursday.
The bottom line here is that some WGs feel the need to meet six times
a year, rather than three, and that the current rules impose a lot of
hassle and uncertainty. I hope that the SEC members, regardless of
what kind of schedules they prefer, will look at the issue from a
broad perspective and accept that we do have a problem. If so, I
think we can find a solution.
Regards,
Roger
At 11:09 AM -0700 02/06/06, Grow, Bob wrote:
>Carl:
>
>I respectfully disagree. Though you do mention a wireless perspective, I
>would have to good naturedly label it as wireless myopia. 802.3 doesn't
>hold interim Working Group meetings. In 802.3 we occasionally (frequently)
>find it convenient to have Task Groups meet separately. In some cases, this
>is because of geographical preference, in others ballot schedules. (There
>have been four separate 802.3 interim meetings since the March plenary.) I
>am content with the current interim quorum rules.
>
>--Bob Grow
>
>-----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
>>