Re: [802SEC] LMSC Rules Change Distribution and Ballot
Tony,
I offered my thoughts to provide some background for those reading the
proposed rules change without context.
There are really two questions raised by the proposed change.
1) Should the asymmetry in membership acquisition and retention be reduced?
2) Does the algorithm proposed by the change (perhaps with
clarifications) achieve the desired reduction in asymmetry without
introducing other significant problems.
I personally believe that the answer to question 1 is clearly yes.
The answer to question 2 is less clear. While the proposed algorithm
clearly involves minimum change of text, I don't view that as a
compelling criteria. I understand the concerns about the current
proposal being "trigger Happy" and perhaps inadequately clear and I
welcome clarifications and/or alternative algorithms to reduce the asymmetry.
Thanks,
wlq
Tony Jeffree wrote:
>
> 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