Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
As you may have guessed, my first note on this subject was based on my
reading my mail last in first read, after a week out of the office. My
apologies for that note.
One additional benefit of allowing the interim meetings to be designated as
plenaries is to make the requirement "two of the last four plenaries" span a
6 month period instead of a 16 month period. This shortening of the span
would eliminate many people just waiting to time out of the attendance book,
and would therefore increase our ability to get the required participation
in working group ballots, and generally keep our records much more up to
date.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)" <carlstevenson@agere.com>
To: "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@cisco.com>; "Matthew Sherman"
<mjsherman@research.att.com>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:21 AM
> > To: Matthew Sherman
> > Cc: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'; 'pat_thaler@agilent.com';
> > billq@attglobal.net; r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >
> > Allow me to add my $0.02.
> >
> > Due to the rules for establishing membership in a WG, 802.17
> > has never met quorum requirements at any meetings Plenary or
> > Interim after March 2001. Over time, we should see our
> > membership drop as people who are not committed stop showing up
> > or fail to answer ballots. But until such time, there is very
> > little hope of meeting quorum at interims.
>
> Mike,
>
> Perhaps this raises another issue ... as you allude, people will
> show up at the first plenary "just to get voting rights" ... then
> you may never see them again. Since only plenaries and letter
> ballots count towards losing voting rights, it can take some time
> to purge the "lookie-loos" from the voting ranks and that can have
> an adverse effect on the ability of a group to achieve a quorum and
> actually make progress ... through NO fault of those who are acually
> interested in advancing the work.
>
> This seems to me to be extremely counter-productive.
>
> > As such I support the idea of being able to designate an interim
> > as equivalent to a plenary as long as certain rules are followed.
> >
> > The WG should vote that the interim be considered as a plenary as a
> > proceedural motion. This should be done at the Plenary immediately
> > preceeding the interim meeting.
>
> Another alternative would be to just eliminate the distinction
> between plenaries (where a quorum is implicit, even if only a
> few people were to show up ...) and interims, where a formal
> quorum based on the total number of voting members of record
> is required (then there's the issue of whether a quorum
> must be determined at the time of each and every vote, but that's
> a rat hole I'd prefer not to go down ...).
>
> I guess, what I'm suggesting is that duly-constituted, properly
> noticed WG "interim" meetings have the same status as WG meetings
> that happen to be held in conjunction with an 802 plenary (that they,
> as a matter of course, be WG plenaries), provided that they are
> scheduled and noticed sufficently in advance that anyone who wants
> to attend (participate in advancing the work) is reasonably and
> equally noticed, with respect to everyone.
>
> > I think it reasonable that a 1/3 of the voters must be present
> > at the interim allowing for sufficient oversight and legitimacy
> > to the votes.
>
> 1/3 does not seem like an unreasonable number to me ...
>
> > The meeting should be announced with at least 60 days warning and
> > the venue cannot be changed after the announcement. If a change
> > is required, then the normal 1/2 quorum rule applies.
>
> I think that's a reasonable "check and balance" ... the wireless
> WGs that I'm familiar with always schedule their meetings well
> in advance, due to the logistical requirements of arranging a
> meeting of that size ... the only time I'm aware of when there's
> been a change was last Sept., when the situation surrounding 9/11
> made it impossible for most people to attend and the meeting was
> canceled entirely ...
>
> Carl
>
> > cheers,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > Matthew Sherman wrote:
> > >
> > > Carl,
> > >
> > > Just an off the cuff thought. Why can't we have working
> > group plenary
> > > meetings that are at times independent of the 802 plenary?
> > I get concerned
> > > about treating every interim as being exempt from quorum
> > requirements. If a
> > > working group wants to designate specific meetings as
> > "plenary" meetings
> > > without the rest of 802 present, perhaps this should be
> > allowed. However, I
> > > think there should be such a formal declaration well in
> > advance, the same
> > > way as is currently done for plenary meetings.
> > >
> > > 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: 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
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> > Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> > Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> > 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> > voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867
> >