Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Curious. Without wanting to even get close to a debate about whether
Section 2 or Section 4.2 is more relevant :-), at least the two sections
are consistent.
Is the SAB proposal to change both sections (2 and 4.2) or just Section
2 (Precedence)? If they change the precedence without changing section
4.2, things will get real interesting.
Any insight into the logic of this proposed change?
Thanks,
wlq
"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 o ne 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
>