Re: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Roger, your clear thinking cuts to the heart of the problem. I for one and
delighted that we have the benefit of your straight forward, no-nonsense
analysis.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
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: "Roger B. Marks" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>
To: <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 4:24 PM
Subject: 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
> >
> >
>