Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Roger,
Since 802 will not be deciding this issue, having Paul present the
issue, real of imagined, to the SAB is the appropriate action.
Thanks for the discussion,
wlq
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I'm not sure why you say that "placing Robert's Rules at the bottom
> of the precedence list is inconsistent with Section 4.2". I could
> understand why you might say that "having Robert's Rules anywhere but
> the top of the precedence list is inconsistent with Section 4.2". If
> 4.2 means that Robert's Rules are supreme, then, for consistency,
> they would need to go atop the pile.
>
> Since I am sure that the SAB didn't mean Robert's Rules to be atop
> the pile, then I am likewise sure that the SAB didn't mean for 4.2 to
> imply that they are supreme. So, how else can we interpret 4.2?
>
> One possibility is to think about the word "under" in 4.2. A group is
> supposed to work "under" ALL of the documents in Section 2. However,
> these documents are not always consistent. In the face of the
> inconsistency, the precedence list applies. So the fact that a group
> works "under" all of these documents doesn't say that it follows all
> of the rules in all of the documents.
>
> I am not defending the language; I'm just trying to decypher it. I
> fully agree with you that it ought to be clarified.
>
> Since Paul is a member of the SAB, perhaps he'll forward some of our
> comments when the SAB conducts it rules-change ballot.
>
> Roger
>
> >Roger,
> >
> >I understand that the CS SAB Policies and Procedures may be out of line
> >with the SA and IEEE rules. In the searching I have done, only the CS
> >SAB Policies and Procedures require that CS standards units operate
> >under Robert's Rules. And I am not trying to argue that Robert's Rules
> >are the only way of running a meeting.
> >
> >The point I was trying to make was that at least to my reading, Section
> >4.2 of the CS SAB Policies and Procedures requires that CS standards
> >generating units operate under Robert's Rules of Order. The actual text being
> >
> > "4.2 Use of Robert's Rules of Order
> >
> > CSSCs shall operate under Robert's Rules of Order, Newly
> >Revised [Ref. 10]."
> >
> >Thus placing Robert's Rules at the bottom of the precedence list is
> >inconsistent with Section 4.2. One cannot comply with the "shall" of
> >4.2 and also comply with another set of rules that specify operation
> >that conflicts with Robert's Rules. Again, I am not trying to say that
> >Robert's Rules are the answer, I am just trying to point out the
> >conflict that will result by changing the precedence list without also
> >changing Section 4.2.
> >
> >I will say that if all you get out of the current text of Section 4.2 is
> >a definition of the applicable version of Robert's Rules, then we have a
> >very different understanding of the language.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >wlq
> >
> >"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> As I said, one key element of the logic behind the change is to bring
> >> the CS in line with the IEEE-SA. There were also some particular
> >> drivers that I don't think bear directly on our situation.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't see that changing just the precedence in Section
> > > 2 will cause any inconsistency. Section 4.2 can't mean that Robert's
> > > Rules are supreme; otherwise, they'd have to be at the top of the
> > > precedence heap. In other words, Robert's Rules are subservient to a
> > > lot of other rules in either version of the precedence. That means,
> > > to me, that 4.2 is doing nothing more than defining the applicable
> > > version of Robert's Rules.
> > >
> > > By the way, the SAB, in the meeting I attended, also discussed how to
> >> best change the P&P so as to make sure it wasn't interfering with the
> >> rules of Sponsors. I described this in my report this way: "There was
> >> also concern about when Sponsor Rules should take precedence over SAB
> >> rules, and how to structure the SAB P&P to make this possible. There
> >> was no clear answer, but one proposal was to include a statement in
> >> the SAB P&P saying that, when the SAB approves the P&P of a Sponsor,
> >> the Sponsor P&P is incorporated into the SAB rules as applicable to
> >> that Sponsor." I don't know how this turned out.
> > >
> > > By the way: while this is an interesting discussion, I'd like to
> > > remark that it isn't really relevant to the quorum issue. Whether or
> > > not we follow Robert's Rules, 802 still has the liberty to specify
> > > its own quorum requirements.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > At 4:29 PM -0700 02/06/10, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
> >> >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 plenari es ... 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 wen 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
> >> >>
> >h