RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
I suggest a membership retention plan that, I believe, is based on
the rules. It's the one I used when 802.16 was starting up.
First of all, membership is clearly based on participation. I cannot
fathom why anyone would suggest applying the 2-of-4 rule after the
first session. If you have participating if every session the Working
Group has ever had, then you are member. Period. I really hope we can
avoid further debate on this point. [On other other hand, clarifying
it with a rules change is a fine idea too.]
Now, beyond the first session, things can get complicated if we let
them, if we start introducing concepts like fictional attendance at
fictional pre-existing sessions. I also think that this approach
leads to a poor result. In contrast, I think that the rules, in
principle, have the right idea as written [though they are clearly
too fuzzy]. Let me explain.
The first opportunity to lose membership in a new WG is after the
second Plenary (Session #3, assuming there is an interim Session #2).
In the case of 802.16, I followed the 2-of-4 rule literally. That
meant that, to retain membership beyond Session #3, you needed
participation in a second session beyond #1. In other words, the
easily-obtained membership that you scored in Session #1 would not be
a long-lasting one if you never attended another session. If you
skipped #2 and #3, you were out. As long as you followed up #1 with
either either #2 or #3, you were covered on a long-term basis,
because you would have 2-4 all the way until #1 was aged out.
Is this unfair disenfranchisement? I don't think so. The rules grant
membership liberally at the first session, but the initial few
sessions are important. Typically, a bunch of new people show up at
Session #1 to get membership. That's fine; this is what the rules
say, and it's how it ought to be. But that membership covers only the
first three sessions. If you can't be bothered to participate in #2
or #3, then you lose your membership. Fair enough, in my view. I
don't think that Session #1 ought to buy you a free one-year
membership pass.
Further, there is more to the story. If, for instance, you
participate in Session #4, then you will qualify for 2-of-4 when you
come to Session #5, so you can earn your membership back. Fair enough.
In my opinion, the startup rules are brilliantly designed. However,
they are poorly executed. I think we simply ought to fix the
execution.
By the way, in 802.16, the membership rules are translated from those
in 802 to make them clean and simple. I'd like to see the 802 rules
follow this same approach. The rules are here
<http://ieee802.org/16/membership.html>. In summary, they read:
*Membership is granted at each 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session to those
in attendance who have participated in at least two recent 802.16
Sessions, one of which was an 802.16 LMSC Plenary Session.
*At the end of each 802 LMSC Plenary Session, membership is lost by
those who have not participated in at least two recent 802 Sessions,
one of which was an 802 LMSC Plenary Session.
All the rest is just definitions of "participation" and "recent session."
Roger
>Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
>So far, I haven't seen a lot of comment on my suggestion that we
>interpret the rules. The email trail to date is given below. To
>summarize what I have heard so far (based on the e-mail trail):
>
>1) At least some of us believe that membership based on SG
>attendance was originally discussed by 802 and intentionally avoided
>in the current rules
>
>2) Al least some of us believe that the intent of the current
>rules was indeed to give anyone present at the initial meeting
>voting rights under the assumption they would continue to attend
>
>3) At least some of us believe that "meeting" really meant
>"meeting", not "session" in the current new WG membership rules
>
>4) At least some of up believe the chair of a new WG should have
>the discretion to interpret "meeting" as "session" since
>participation is only defined per session (currently)
>
> In addition I have seen some side traffic concerning other process
>issues relevant to the upcoming 802.20 elections. However, the
>focus of my interpretation request is really on whether or not the
>membership in 802.20 is valid, not on the election process itself.
>I encourage others to start dealing with that topic if they feel it
>is an issue. Based on the comments to date, I would have to say
>that the rule in error is the one that determines membership
>retention. Based on that my recommended interpretation would be to
>interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention" to read:
>
> "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
>of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted
>interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for
>one of the two Plenary meetings. (In the case of a new working group
>with less than 4 meetings, it is assumed that the 4 plenary sessions
>prior to the formation of the group were attended by the new WG
>members when determining if membership is retained.)"
>
>I want to clearly establish before the interim what the membership
>status of 802.20 members will be for that meeting. This
>interpretation would enforce that membership in that WG is
>maintained until it can unambiguously be demonstrated that the
>retention requirements were not met. If anyone objects to this
>interpretation please state so, and why they believe so. I want to
>have a full 30 day ballot on an interpretation and I want to make
>sure I get it right before I put it forward. That is why I am
>trying to get inputs now. Please tell me what you think.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mat
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:42 PM
>To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Bob, I agree completely. The practice in the past has been to
>grant voting rights based only on attendance at the first official
>meeting of the first plenary session. But since our rules only
>refer to "participation" in the first session, I am willing to allow
>the WG chair to define exactly what is meant by participation. In
>this case however where you only have a temporary chair who may have
>a stake in the outcome of the voting this may very well become the
>minefield to which you refer. Already there has been quite a bit of
>dickering over what constitutes valid participation. That's why I
>think we need a re-run with the rules clearly spelled out in
>advance, so that everyone has a fair chance to participate. Let's
>hope Geoff can bring his usual measure of sanity to the process.
>J
>
>
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:05 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Buzz may be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a
>slightly different long term perspective as having been in the 802
>trenches the longest of any SEC member. Since 1981 I have
>participated in (and I think had voting rights on): 802.2 (as an
>802 voter), 802.3, 802.4 (when it was part of the Token DLMAC),
>802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11. I have had membership in two
>working groups at the same time. I have been involved in the
>organization of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802 got dots, and
>either one or both of 802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member at an
>initial meeting. My recollection is that received member rights at
>an organizational meeting, independent of session attendance during
>the plenary week. While long term historical perspective is
>enlightening, it may also be a mine field.
>
>
>
>--Bob Grow
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:53 PM
>To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>Buzz,
>
>
>
>Much appreciated, and very enlightening!
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
>To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Colleagues, Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to consider.
>
>
>
>As our now longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to
>the intention of the current rules based on prior discussions going
>back to when the rules were created. The intention behind section
>5.1.3.1 was that all attendees who participated in the first
>official plenary meeting would be automatically granted full voting
>rights (membership) on a grandfathered basis (as though they had
>attended the two prior plenaries) so that there would be a pool of
>eligible members (voters) to allow for quorum establishment and
>transaction of committee business. Otherwise a new working group
>would be unable to transact any business for two meetings, something
>that was deemed unacceptable. There was consideration given to
>having a participation requirement based on the preliminary
>activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection is that
>study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable
>entities, which were subject to changes and might not be fully
>attended by the major players until such time as a PAR was
>officially approved. So the intention was that the fairest basis
>was to allow everyone who was willing to commit to active
>participation at the first official meeting should be treated as
>equal participants and granted full membership.
>
>
>
>Every new Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this
>same basic rule, so it has worked fairly well. However this is the
>very first instance that I'm aware of, in which all of the officers
>elected had not been participants of the prior Study group which
>created the PAR. With the exception of Peter Tarrant, who led the
>Hi-Speed LAN Study Group that ultimately morphed into 100BASE-T and
>802.12, the person who was chair of the Study Group has always been
>elected to Chair the Working Group or TAG. There was some serious
>controversy about that particular dynamic as well.
>
>
>
>I personally believe that the correct course for us will be to
>maintain the voters list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll call
>election at the July plenary. Anyone who qualified as a voter in
>Dallas should be entitled to vote in SF whether they attend the
>interim or not. Once the outcome is officially recorded, the SEC
>can address any remaining issues of block voting based on the data,
>rather than on a lot of hearsay and opinion. At least there is some
>opportunity in the meantime to find some compromise solutions which
>may allow the problem to solve itself. Time heals all wounds. J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanx, Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA 98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Gentle-folks:
>
>
>
>I wish to call to your attention to a particular section of Robert's
>Rules. That section is the following from Article IX of Robert's
>Rules (10th edition):
>
>
>
> "If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if
>possible, in harmony with other bylaws. The interpretations should
>be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the
>bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent
>plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where
>an ambiguity exists, a majority vote is all that is required to
>decide the question. The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be
>amended as soon as practicable."
>
>
>
>I am of the opinion that our "bylaws" (the LMSC P&P) are in fact
>"ambiguous or doubtful" regarding the process of obtaining
>membership at the start up of a working group. In particular we
>have from section 5.1.3.1 titled "Establishment":
>
>
>
> "All persons participating in the initial meeting of the
>Working Group become members of the Working Group."
>
>
>
>On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention":
>
>
>
> "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
>of the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted
>interim Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for
>one of the two Plenary meetings."
>
>
>
>As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent
>analysis) in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be
>at odds with one another. Setting aside for a moment the question
>of whether or not we intended "meeting" or "session" in section
>5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet another interpretation) these two rules
>seem to conflict with one another. Even taking the liberal view
>that meeting means session, after the first session the general
>rules would kick in and all "members" would seem to lose their
>membership in the WG.
>
>
>
>All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should
>"fix" this problem by the end of the July meeting. My concern is
>for the beginning of the July meeting. Given what happened in March
>to 802.20, I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these
>"bylaws" so that we don't have a repeat of the last meeting. As
>indicated by Robert's Rules, an interpretation can be established by
>majority vote. I believe a motion could be put forward and then
>approved electronically prior to the July meeting. But before I do
>that, I wanted to open this issue for debate prior to making any
>motions so that I can make sure I make the right motion (or perhaps
>chose not to make a motion at all).
>
>
>
>Any comments on this topic?
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>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
>
>