RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
802.1 has likewise adopted a fairly conservative position on what
can/cannot be done by an interim meeting, and my view is that it is
appropriate to continue with that position. One of the problems with
opening the doors too wide in terms of the decision making powers of
interim meetings is that the end result is to in effect require all WG
members to attend all meetings, whether interim or plenary, to make sure
that they get their say. For some people, 6+ attendances per year would be
an unacceptable burden, whereas the present requirement for most of the
significant decisions to take place during plenaries makes life more
bearable for those with busy schedules. This is one of the reasons why the
voting membership rules require a base level of plenary meeting attendance.
The existing rules give plenty of scope for necessary decisions to be taken
at the right time, so long as the working groups get their acts together.
Conversely, messing with the rules for the powers of interim meetings won't
magically fix the problems of WGs that haven't gotten their acts together.
For these reasons, I have no problems with clarifying the existing intent
of the rules, but I would not like to see any significant change. In
particular, as has been pointed out by others, we are NOT governed by RR,
and that is something that I do NOT want to see change in any way.
Regards,
Tony
At 18:44 05/06/2002 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
>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
Regards,
Tony