Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Jerry,
Four were voting members. Currently there are 25 eligible to vote, 8 of
whom are either liaisons to other groups or other 802 chairs, leaving 17
"regular" voters
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 10:21
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
MIke,
How many many were voting members? How many voting members does 802.18
have? Regards, Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/26/2005 10:17:23 AM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@NORTEL.COM writes:
Bob,
There were 7 people at the meeting.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: boohara@CISCO.COM [mailto:boohara@CISCO.COM]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 09:49
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
With at least two questions as to how many people were present when the
document was approved, I still have not seen an answer from Mike.
Mike, how many people were in the meeting when the document was approved
by 802.18?
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 6:21 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
The decision is Paul's, but for the record .....
I believe the issue here is not whether a quorum is required (it is
required by the 802. P&P and I don't believe you can over rule that with
a motion) but under what condition is a quorum assumed. In the absence
of a record that show a quorum was or was not present, the fact that the
meeting and vote was held implies a quorum. This should only be called
into question at the time of the vote, not after the fact. I believe
this is consistent with the guidance in Roberts Rules, and to do
otherwise would greatly impact some of our larger groups who must take
many votes at interims and should not be required to prove presence of a
quorum at every vote. It should only be if that quorum is questioned at
the time of the vote.
Just my 2 cents...
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:wk3c@WK3C.COM]
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 1:10 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lynch [mailto:mjlynch@NORTEL.COM]
> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 7:55 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
>
> Pat,
>
> Paul and I discussed this yesterday. The situation aligns with what
> Mat said in his email. There is an enabling motion from the July
> plenary to
> allow the interim to work. That motion allowed work without a quorum.
Mike,
While first pointing out that I raised the issue SOLELY on process, NOT
on the content of the document, since I have no objection to the
content, I still believe that a motion that purports to allow a WG or
TAG to conduct "firm and final" business (in the case of .18, filing
documents with any outside regulatory body) whether a quorum is present
or not, is contrary to both the .18 P&P AND the 802 P&P, the latter of
which would render invalid any such provisions in the .18 P&P (and I
don't believe that the .18 P&P contains such provisions).
When I was chairing .18, we NEVER to my knowledge/recollection sent a
document for the 5 day EC review, and certainly not "outside," without
having had the document approved by the required 75% majority with a
quorum present.
While we may have *crafted* documents without a quorum, if one was not
present, we followed up on several occasions with a duly noticed (5 day
notice, per the TAG provisions in the 802 P&P) conference call meeting,
with a quorum present on that conference call, to *approve* the
document.
(The provisions for a "short" (5 day) notice for such conference calls
were
*specifically* put into the 802 P&P at my request in recognition of the
fact that .18 routinely faced filing deadlines set by regulators who
"weren't considerate enough to take our normal 2 month meeting cycles
into consideration" when they established filing deadlines.)
In fact, as many on the EC will recall, on a couple of occasions, even
at 802 plenaries, I "ran around like a chicken with its head cut off"
chasing down votes from the EC when something had to be filed (or
presented to the
ITU-R) on short notice, with Paul's cooperation in conducting an EC
electronic ballot *during* a plenary with the provision that it would
close as soon as all of the EC members had voted and it was clear that
the motion for EC approval had passed (one such ITU-R submission was, in
fact, presented to me by you and Dr. Costa about mid-week during a
plenary when the deadline was for the document to be received
electronically in Geneva by noon on Friday - ahead of the closing EC
meeting).
It seems to me that this EC consultation was likely known of far enough
in advance that a draft could have been prepared by e-mail
correspondence and/or conference calls, followed by a 5 day noticed
conference call for a TAG approval vote (roll call, to assure quorum),
in order to actually meet the filing deadline.
While I sympathize with the predicament that .18 is in (and, again,
don't object to the content of the document that's been presented for EC
review), I think that it's a slippery slope to set a precedent of
effectively condoning the concept of a motion that effectively attempts
to suspend the P&P of a WG or TAG and 802 P&P provisions.
.22's P&P states that the WG need not adjourn, and can continue to "do
business" in the absense of a quorum at an interim, but that, absent a
quorum, any votes that may be taken must be affirmed by the WG, either
by an electronic ballot or at the following plenary.
> According to those who have been in the RR-TAG longer than I have it
> was a normal motion for an interim and conference calls between
> plenary meetings. The meeting was announced well in advance.
Yes, we adopted motions to authorize an interim to occur between
plenaries, but we never, to my knowledge, attempted to bypass the
clearly specified quorum requirement for approval of the work product.
> Not letting the document through supports those who would like to keep
> the 2.5 GHz band in Europe limited to either UMTS (the current
> situation) or to other technologies contained in ITU-R M.1457. None of
> those are IEEE 802 technologies. I'm not saying that the 802.18 input
> (it is not meant to be a 802 input) will be what makes the difference.
> I am saying that there are those who are wanting to keep IEEE 802
> technologies out of the band in Europe and blocking the response
> supports their views. It seems in our best interests to encourage the
> European Commission to enable true technology neutrality in this
> frequency band. This is already a late response to the consultation. I
> suspect that even if the RR-TAG had been in Garden Grove some would
> have still objected to encouraging the European Commission to take the
> technology neutral approach which of course would allow IEEE 802
> standards to be used.
I am sympathetic to all of the above ... It's not the content of the
document that concerns me, but the concept of "writing a blank check" to
what I understand was a VERY small minority of .18 voting members who
were present in Geneva (while I don't have first hand knowledge, it's my
understanding that there were only 3 voting members present in addition
to the Chair - if I've been given incorrect information on that, please
correct me and accept my apology, but that's what I heard). That is,
unfortunately FAR from a quorum, and one of the reasons that I was
disappointed with .18's decision to meet in Geneva - in addition to the
fact that .18 was not here in Garden Grove to "service the needs of" the
Wireless WGs.
> I'm perfectly happy to let Paul do what he said he would do and that
> is determine the result.
It's my understanding from following the message thread that Pat has
made a motion to block filing and it's been seconded by Bob Grow ...
With all due respect to both you and Paul, I believe that that takes the
matter out of Paul's hands and requires an EC electronic ballot (and
that, per the P&P the document may not be sent out unless/until that
motion fails).
Again, I sympathize with your predicament, but with all due respect, I
think it could have been avoided while staying clearly within the
process prescribed by th P&P's, either by having met in Garden Grove
with the majority of the wireless WGs or by using the conference call
provisions of the TAG rules for such documents.
Please don't take this personally, or as an "attack on .18," which it is
not.
Regards,
Carl
----------
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.
----------
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.
----------
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.