RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Roger -
I'm glad to hear that.
Regards,
Tony
At 15:38 10/06/2002 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Bob and Bill have correctly cited the CS SAB rules. However, I think they
>are about to change.
>
>Jim Carlo had me attend a CS SAB meeting of 6 November 2001. There I
>learned that the order of precedence in the SAB P&P was considered broken.
>In my report to the SEC of 7 November
><http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg01791.html>, I said:
>
>"Jim Isaak led discussion of some changes to the Policies and
>Procedures... The SAB P&P mistakenly puts Sponsor Policies and Procedures
>below Robert's Rules of Order; this will be fixed."
>
>I just called Jim Isaak to find out whatever happened to these rules
>changes. He said that they are behind schedule but that he has promised to
>start a 30-day ballot with the CS SAB within a few weeks. The changes
>include moving Robert's Rules to the bottom of the stack. Jim said that,
>in the SAB discussions, there has been no opposition to this change. He
>says we can expect the new rules to be in place within three months.
>
>Part of the reason that the SAB is dropping Robert's Rules to the bottom
>is that the IEEE-SA wants it that way. For example, the IEEE-SA's "Model
>Operating Procedures for Sponsors for Standards Development"
><http://standards.ieee.org/guides/sponsmod.html> recommend that Robert's
>Rules be last.
>
>Roger
>
>
>
>At 1:49 PM -0700 02/06/10, Bob O'Hara wrote:
>>Bill,
>>
>>I think that Section 2.0 has even more relevance to our discussion, as it
>>defines the precedence when there are conflicts between documents.
>>
>>2.0 PRECEDENCE
>>In the event of inconsistencies between two or more of the above documents,
>>the document with higher precedence (indicated by earlier appearance on the
>>following list) shall take precedence: [IEEE Standards Association
>>procedures are available at: http://standards.ieee.org/sitemap.html ]
>>
>>IEEE Bylaws
>>IEEE Standards Association Bylaws
>>IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual
>>IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
>>IEEE Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8
>>IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions
>>IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
>>IEEE CS Constitution and Bylaws
>>IEEE CS Policies and Procedures, Section 11
>>IEEE CS Board of Governors Resolutions
>>IEEE CS SAB P&P (this document)
>>Robert's Rules of Order
>>Sponsor Policies and Procedures
>>Working Group or Study Group Policies and Procedures
>>
>>As you can see, Robert's Rules have higher precedence than either our (LMSC)
>>rules or WG rules.
>>
>> -Bob
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
>>Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:44 PM
>>To: Bob O'Hara
>>Cc: 'Roger B. Marks'; 802sec (stds-802-sec@ieee.org)
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>To emphasize Bob's points, Section 4.2 of the Computer Society Standards
>>Activity Board Policies and Procedures
>>(http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm) requires that all
>>standards making entities under the Computer Society operate under
>>Robert's Rules of Order.
>>
>>So the only option that we have is to use the flexibility that Robert's
>>Rules allows in some situations.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>wlq
>>
>>Bob O'Hara wrote:
>>>
>>> Roger,
>>>
>>> Interesting edit that you make in excerpting the LMSC operating rules
>>here:
>>>
>>> * "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."
>> >
>> > The complete paragraph that you cite is:
>> >
>> > 5.1.4 Operation of the Working Group
>> > 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. Roberts Rules of Order shall be used in combination with
>>> these operating rules to achieve this balance.
>>>
>>> Please note the use of the word "shall" in the last sentence. The WG
>>chair
>>> does not have the choice as to which parts of Robert's Rules they wish to
>>be
>> > applied to their WG.
>> >
>> > You also quote the operational portion of Robert's Rules that apply
>> to the
>> > WGs, according to our present rules:
>>>
>>> * "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 the Standards Association Operations Manual, describing the operation
>>of
>>> the SA BOG:
>>>
>>> 4.3 Transaction of business
>>> Except as specified in the IEEE Standards Association Bylaws and this
>>> manual, meetings will be conducted in accordance with the latest edition
>>of
>>> Robert's Rules of Order.
>>>
>>> In the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, section 5.1 Transaction of Business
>>> (in part):
>>>
>>> Approval of proposed IEEE standards, or proposed withdrawal of such
>>> standards, shall require affirmative votes by at least 75% of members
>>> voting. Except as otherwise specified in these bylaws, meetings of the
>> > IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be run in accordance with the parliamentary
>>> procedures of Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition).
>>>
>>> My point is that there is an awful lot of precedent for not modifying
>>> Robert's Rules, except where necessary to accomplish the purposes of the
>>> body. Given that LMSC and its WGs have been successfully producing
>>> standards for quite some time now, without relief from the default quorum
>>> specified in Robert's Rules, I find it very difficult to justify that we
>>> need such relief, now.
>>>
>>> -Bob
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:16 PM
>>> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>> Subject: 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 meet ing
>> > >> 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 buiness 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
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>s
>
>
Regards,
Tony