RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob,
I agree that Robert's Rules allow a body to define its quorum to be other
than the default of a majority of the enrolled membership. But, LMSC has
thus far declined to make such a change. We would also have to get a change
to our rules approved by the next body above us. I believe that they would
ask us why, after more than two decades, we are just now having trouble
reaching a quorum in our meetings.
I believe that you are correct that some groups have trouble achieving a
quorum. That is the reason that the effective quorum at a meeting held in
conjunction with an LMSC plenary is two members, one to make a motion and
another to second it. If the LMSC rules must make such a drastic carve-out
for WGs to achieve a quorum, perhaps the problem is not in how a quorum is
defined, but how membership is defined.
Rather than changing the quorum rule, I suggest we examine why it is so
difficult to obtain membership and so easy to retain it. The quickest way
to obtain membership, other than to have it bestowed on one by the chairman,
is to attend three meetings in four months, including at least one meeting
coincident with the LMSC plenary. In order to retain membership, one need
only vote on issued letter ballots and attend two meetings each year,
including at least one coincident with the LMSC plenary. Therefore, it can
take as much as 10 months after a member dies for them to be removed from
the membership. (Do the math: attend the November and January meetings,
then die. Your voting rights don't expire until the following November.)
This "overhang" is entirely unacceptable and is a significant contributor to
the difficulty of assembling half the membership at a meeting.
There are many members that attend only enough meetings to keep there
membership, so that they are able to obtain the working drafts of the
standards and to vote on WG ballots. The membership of many WGs is swelled
by "looky-Lous" that show up for only a few consecutive meetings and then
disappear.
We should change the membership rules to encourage active participation. I
would suggest that membership be lost if a member has missed one meeting and
is not present before the close of the first scheduled meeting of the next
immediately following meeting, i.e., if they miss January's 75% attendance
mark, they will be a non-member at the close of the first WG meeting on
Monday in March. They will have to restart from zero with no credit for
previous meetings attended. This will have the effect of requiring a
member's attendance at alternate meetings of the WG, reducing the dead wood
rapidly, and nearly guaranteeing a default (>50%) quorum at every meeting.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Love [mailto:rdlove@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:56 AM
To: Bob O'Hara; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob, your note misses the point that we have incredible relief from Robert's
Rules of order by defining a quorum for our 802 plenaries as anyone who
shows up.
There is an "elephant in the living room" that nobody wants to admit is
there. We have incredibly hard times getting a real quorum (50% of the
voting members according to our bylaws) to most working group meetings
because of the way we define our membership. If we are willing to look at
the problem, we should really change the quorum to a much more realistic
number, or allow interims to be considered as plenaries if they are
announced with enough advance notice. By the way, changing the percentage
required for a quorum is not mucking with Robert's Rules. Rather it is
using the rules in a very reasonable way. The rules allow for changing the
percent that constitutes a quorum based on the percentages that we can
reasonably expect to attend announced meetings. We have set a very
unrealistic number and would do well to consider changing it.
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: "Bob O'Hara" <bob@bstormnetworks.com>
To: "'Roger B. Marks'" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>; <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
> 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 meeting
> >> 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 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
> >> >>
> >>