Re: [802SEC] LMSC Rules Change Distribution and Ballot
Bill -
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree with your point 5, and I don't have
a problem with your observation that there are two distinct styles of
operation in 802.
Speaking for 802.1, we have developed a style of operation over the years
which works for us, and I believe the proposed change will be unhelpful
to that style of operation, and will cause additional problems as
discussed below. Clearly, for groups that operate differently, their view
may differ.
You mention asymmetry in the existing rule with regard to acquiring and
retaining working group membership. I would observe that, while the
proposed change tackles one form of asymmetry, making it possible to lose
membership roughly as fast as you can gain it, it also creates a
different asymmetry, due to the fact that "joining" credit can
still date back 4 meetings, which will lead to some curious results that
will likely confuse/annoy people. A simple example: Ignoring interim
meetings altogether for the moment, consider someone that shows up for
two plenaries, misses the third, shows up at the fourth. By the rule for
acquiring membership, they are a voting member for the duration of that
fourth plenary meeting; however, the rule for losing membership kicks in
at the end of that meeting, and they lose their vote for a plenary
meeting cycle. I don't think that makes any kind of sense - and I'm sure
it would not make any more sense to the person affected.
Although it meets its stated goal of ageing out voters more rapidly
(modulo the curious effect above), the proposed rule is significantly
more "trigger happy" than the current rule. I've played around
with a simple spreadsheet to model how it behaves - even at the level
where an attendee misses just 1 in 10 meetings on average, if those
misses are randomly spaced, the proposed rule will occasionally deny
membership for a meeting cycle, on occasions when two adjacent meetings
or consecutive plenaries are missed. With an average attendance rate of 2
out of 3 meetings on a continuous basis, the attendee can look forward to
losing voting rights for a meeting cycle or two fairly frequently,
despite, on the face of it being a regular attendee.
Conclusion: Whatever merits we might or might not see in making it easier
to gain a quorum at an interim meeting, this particular solution will
likely trade one problem (difficulty in gaining a quorum) for another
(much confusion and argument about why active, upstanding, regularly
attending WG members keep getting disenfranchised for no terribly good
reason). The likely fallout will be that Chairs will continually have to
exercise their discretion over voting rights in order to placate
aggrieved members.
A couple of further thoughts:
- Given different styles of operation, why the assumption that there
should be a "one size fits all" membership rule? It seems to me
that the best interests of all concerned might well be met by defining
two alternative rules & leaving it to the membership of each WG to
decide which rule they wish to apply.
- One of my WG members made the following observations which seem
pertinent: "It seems to me that this is a
rather drastic approach to aging out voting rights. Given the
current economic conditions some companies may not be able to afford to
send the same representative to each meeting. A rule like this
would make retaining voting rights substantially more of a burden on
participating companies and individuals. I would propose a
compromise of "...two of the last three..." Plenary
meetings. That would help alleviate some of the financial burden
and allow for "personal" reasons that a member may not be able
to attend while still speeding up the age out process. It seems
reasonable to me that a person could have a three month window in which
they would be unable to attend a plenary or interim meeting in that time
frame (maternity leave comes to mind)." The alternative
2 out of 3 rule that he proposes isn't nearly as trigger happy as the 2
out of 2 rule, and offers some improvement in the speed of ageing
out.
Regards,
Tony
At 11:50 16/09/2002 -0700, Bill Quackenbush wrote:
All,
The issue that the proposed change to section 5.1.3.2 of the 802
Operating Rules attempts to at least partially address is that of
achieving quorum at interim WG/TAG meetings. I offer the
following
facts and thoughts.
1) 802 WGs/TAGs have two distinct styles of operation.
* Some
hold WG/TAG meetings only during 802 Plenary weeks and (with
rare exception) hold only interim task force meetings which have no
quorum requirement to conduct business (approve motions).
* Others
prefer to hold more frequent WG/TAG meetings. They hold
plenary WG/TAG meetings during 802 Plenary weeks and hold interim
WG/TAG
meetings which have a quorum requirement to conduct
business.
(I personally believe that both styles can work, that neither is
inherently superior to the other and that a WG/TAG should be free
to
select the operation style that best fits their style and
personality.)
2) The current 802 rules are significantly asymmetric with respect
to
acquiring and retaining working group membership.
*
Membership may be acquired in four months by attending two
successive
plenary meetings plus an intervening interim meeting.
*
Membership may be retained for as long as 16 or 18 months after the
last meeting attended, depending upon whether the last meeting
attended
was respectively a plenary or interim meeting, and membership may
be
retained without any interim meeting attendance.
3) It is not uncommon for individuals to become members of a WG/TAG
when
certain issues are before the group and then disappear for the rest of
a
project or the next project. This behavior in combination with
the
significant asymmetry of the membership acquisition and retention
rules
unnecessarily burdens the ability of those who continue to attend
the
meetings of that WG/TAG to conduct business by raising the quorum
requirement.
4) The current membership retention requirements make it very
difficult
to ensure a quorum at an interim WG/TAG meetings.
5) There are a number of individuals (I being one) that believe
that
allowing interim WG/TAG meeting to conduct business without a quorum
is
poor policy and an invitation to potential abuse.
The purpose of the proposed 802 rule change is to minimize the
asymmetery between membership acquisition and retention rules.
Thanks,
wlq
aka Bill Quackenbush
Treasurer, P802 LMSC
Geoff Thompson wrote:
>
> Colleages-
>
> This is a distribution of proposed changes to the 802 (LMSC)
Operating
> Rules to participants in IEEE Project 802.
>
> This also constitutes initiation of an 30 day ballot of the Exec
(SEC)
> on the same material
>
> Working Group Chairs and other members of the Exec need to cast
their
> vote by close of ballot which is midnight (Pacific Time) October
13.
> Sufficient time should be allowed before casting your ballot so
that
> your constituency can provide you feedback to consider in
formulating
> your position. [WG Chairs, please redistribute this to your WG
lists
> and invite your WG members to comment through you.]
>
> [Also, please note that the closing date that Vice-Chair Mat
Sherman
> set on the procedure for electronic balloting was incorrectly set
at
> 60 days (10/28/02) after mailing. It is hereby reset to October 13
as
> above.]
>
> If comments are received, a comment resolution meeting will be held
on
> Sunday evening immediately preceding the Plenary Week in
Kauai.
>
> A brief description of the changes are listed below:
>
> 1) A
modification to 5.1.3.2 rules regarding membership
> retention requirements to more
accurately reflect the profile of
> our active membership. (ref:
Prop5-1-3-2.pdf)
>
> 2) A set
of changes to support the addition of the Radio
> Regulatory TAG to our organization.
(ref: 18-02-011r0.pdf)
>
> The text of each of the proposed changes are attached to this
mailing.
>
> As a member of IEEE Project 802 you are encouraged to carefully
review
> the proposed rule changes and ask questions of, or forward any
> comments to, a representative on the LMSC SEC well before the
closure
> of the SEC ballot. SEC members will carefully consider your
comments
> and suggestions as part of the balloting process.
>
> Geoff Thompson
> 1st Vice Chair, IEEE 802 LMSC
>
>
Name: Prop5-1-3-2.pdf
> Prop5-1-3-2.pdf Type: Adobe
Portable Document Format
>
(application/pdf)
>
Encoding: base64
>
>
Name: 18-02-011r0.pdf
> 18-02-011r0.pdf Type: Adobe
Portable Document Format
>
(application/pdf)
>
Encoding: base64
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> |=========================================|
> | Geoffrey O.
Thompson
|
> | Vice Chair, IEEE
802
|
> | Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S: P79/06/B04 |
> | 4655 Great America
Parkway
|
> | P. O. Box
58185
|
> | Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
USA |
> | Phone: +1 408 495
1339
|
> | Fax: +1 408 495
5615
|
> | E-Mail:
thompson@ieee.org
|
> | Please see the IEEE 802 web page at
|
> |
http://www.ieee802.org/
Regards,
Tony