Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WG me mbership
Tony, per your comment:
> However, I think the other part of Bob's suggestion - of allowing voters
to
> opt out of their balloting responsibilities on a ballot-by-ballot basis,
> while maintaining their WG vote - is a bad idea. I think it is important
to
> maintain the principle that voting members take part in the work of the WG
> - the major thrust of which is (should be) developing standards. The
> "respond to 2 out of the last 3 ballots" rule seems to me to keep a
> reasonable balance here.
It was never my intention to drop the requirement to respond to 2 out of the
last 3 ballots. It looks like we really are making significant progress in
converging on a set of rules that can gain widespread support.
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: "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk>
To: <pat_thaler@agilent.com>
Cc: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WG me
mbership
>
> At 13:41 24/09/2002 -0600, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> >While I think Bob did somewhat miss the point, I agree somewhat with his
> >suggestion.
> >
> >802.3 for a long time has stated to its voters that part of their
> >obligation was to maintain correct contact information (especially email
> >address) and does drop voters if their email consitantly bounces. People
> >who are no longer interested in a working group because of a job change
> >rarely take the time to notify the chair of their new email.
> >
> >We should formalize in the rules that failure to provide the chair with
up
> >to date contact information is grounds for loosing voting rights. That
> >might not solve the total problem that some of the working groups are
> >concerned about, but it is a reasonable and fair step.
>
> As you say, this is effectively part of current practice, so it would be
> just as well to formalize it in the rules. Might also be worth formalizing
> the option for members who know that they have no further interest in a WG
> to resign their vote - again, in practice, if someone asks to be taken off
> a WG voting list, I am sure that their request would be granted.
>
> However, I think the other part of Bob's suggestion - of allowing voters
to
> opt out of their balloting responsibilities on a ballot-by-ballot basis,
> while maintaining their WG vote - is a bad idea. I think it is important
to
> maintain the principle that voting members take part in the work of the WG
> - the major thrust of which is (should be) developing standards. The
> "respond to 2 out of the last 3 ballots" rule seems to me to keep a
> reasonable balance here.
>
>
> >For the remainder of the problem, the following are possibilities:
> >1) Keep the current 2 out of the last 4 rule, but make it 2 out of the
> >last 4 working group meetings rather than plenary meetings - for the
> >working groups that hold interim working group meetings, those meetings
> >would be part of the count of the last 4 meetings. We made the rule
depend
> >only on plenaries because we felt it was desireable to accomodate voters
> >who could only attend 3 meetings a year; especially international
> >participants who have to travel to North America for most of the
meetings.
> >If working groups that feel they need to meet in full working group 6
> >times a year, perhaps it is time to change that aspect of the rule. This
> >also leaves the rule effectively unchanged for those working groups that
> >only meet at plenaries.
>
> This seems like a promising solution. However, as pointed out below, if we
> go this route, the joining rule should also be changed to match (attend 2
> out of 4 WG meetings, not plenaries, to gain your vote).
>
>
> >2) Make the rule 2 out of 3. This is less draconian than the 2 out of 2
> >that was in the rule change.
>
> This rule has less problematic behaviour than the 2 out of 2 rule - I
would
> suggest that if we end up going this route, that the joining rule also be
> changed to match (gain membership if attended 2 of the last 3
> plenaries...etc) as this helps to avoid some of the cases where you can
> gain membership and then immediately lose it again.
>
> I wouldn't be unhappy with this as a compromise, but I prefer option 1).
>
>
> >3) Lower quourum.
>
> Didn't we beat this one to death a while back? I don't think that basing a
> WG quorum on less than 50% of voters makes any sense - apart from anything
> else, it increases the danger of making decisions in WG meetings that will
> not stand the test of being balloted in a draft.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
> >Regards,
> >Pat
> >