Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership
Based on the fact that we now have a considerable history of interim meeting
dates and venues not being known until the end of the previous plenary, I
would recommend that 45 days be the minimum notification required for
interim meetings to count within the required 4. I believe that 4 months is
too much lead time to require, and it is an unnecessarily large lead time
for smaller working groups (< 150 participants at a meeting).
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: "Mike Takefman" <tak@cisco.com>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme
mbership
>
> Tony, Pat,
>
> one question, one statement and a proposal modification.
>
> Q) I searched the rules for the snippet "duly constituted". It is
> undefined in the document. Could I please have a definition?
>
> My intent in proposing a 4 meeting window where the interim
> meetings were well advertised is an attempt to make sure that
> quorum does not need to be met in order for an interim meeting
> to count IFF it is advertised well in advance (say 16 weeks).
> While we often make the point that plenary dates are known
> years in advance, I think that operationally, people do not
> really plan their IEEE travel any more than 4 months in advance.
> A requirement for 16 weeks normally means that at any given
> interim, the next interim date must be know.
>
> I am willing to have voting rights start at the begining of
> the third meeting given the comments by Pat and Tony.
>
> mike
>
> Tony Jeffree wrote:
> >
> > At 16:19 25/09/2002 -0600, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> >
> > >I disagree with you about the impact of the change to the rule on
gaining
> > >membership. There are very large numbers of casual attendees who attend
> > >two 802.3 meetings. Requiring attendence of three meetings to gain
voting
> > >rights filters out casual attendees. Granting voting rights for those
who
> > >attend just two meetings could make it difficult to close ballots or
get
> > >quorums.
> > >
> > >David Law could provide actual numbers, but I would say it isn't
unusual
> > >for 802.3 to have 30 to 50 people per plenary cycle who have attended
two
> > >meetings but don't attend the third.
> >
> > Pat -
> >
> > Its a fair point - in that case, retaining the 3 meeting requirement for
> > gaining a vote is a good idea.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
>
> --
> Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
> Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
> Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
> 2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
> voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867