Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
I think we should focus on quorum, which is a tough enough problem to
solve without trying to redefine membership requirements at the same
time.
I strongly oppose redefining an "interim session" as a "Plenary
session". The rules are loaded with references to "Plenary sessions".
This clearly means "LMSC Plenary sessions".
Roger
At 12:06 PM -0400 02/06/10, Robert D. Love wrote:
>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
>> >