Re: [802SEC] proposal for non-NA Plenary soon [was +++EC Email Ballot+++ENDS 13 JAN+++motion to hold plenary sessions outside NA]

[Pat Thaler <pat_thaler@AGILENT.COM>]

I would object to calling something a plenary but having it really be an interim. It just wouldn't be honest.

Also, note that making has a plenary has substantive effects. A plenary would remove the need for a quorum so lightly making the decision to convert an interim to a plenary could lead to procedural problems at some time in the future. A plenary implies an obligation for all the working groups to participate - an interim leaves the option to participate or have their own. I would object to having an extra plenary meeting because of its effect on voting rights. I would object to having a January, May or September plenary in place of a March, July, or November plenary because that could disrupt the forwarding of documents - the four month spread between plenaries works out well with the usual ballot cycle times.

If any of you feel we should have a non-North American plenary before 2008, isn't March 2007 still open? I suggest working with Buzz and Face-2-face to prepare a proposal for a site to bring to the March 2005 meeting. If a site under consideration for the January 802 non-NA interim could handle a plenary then one alternative would be to see if that can be switched to March.

Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Friday, 07 January, 2005 10:59 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] proposal for non-NA Plenary soon [was +++EC Email
Ballot+++ENDS 13 JAN+++motion to hold plenary sessions outside NA]


At 18:45 07/01/2005, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>My specific proposal is that, at the March meeting, we define a
>future January, May, or September for a Plenary session and issue a
>solicitation for hosting proposals. I am thinking of making a motion
>to that effect in March, and I welcome views on the idea.

One of the things that I value about interim meetings is that we get a
contiguous stretch of 3 or 4 days of uninterrupted technical meeting time,
without the usual Plenary clutter of miscellaneous administrative cra - er
- sorry, that should of course read, terribly useful and important
non-technical meetings. So I would support this , and would second your
motion, if we could manage NOT to use it as an excuse for an outbreak of
SEC meetings, etc., i.e., keep it as an interim for all practical purposes
other than in name.


Regards,
Tony

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.

----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.