RE: voting membership rules
Tony,
I am wary of messing with the quorum requirements as people might feel that
this process was not open and fair. The kind of complaint I envisage would
be that people make their attendance plans based on the rules as written,
and might feel disenfranchised if an interim considered matters
traditionally requiring a vote at a quorate meeting (typically a plenary).
I would be sympathetic to such a complaint.
-- John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
> Sent: 26 September 1999 07:55
> To: John Messenger
> Cc: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; SMarin@boschtelecominc.com;
> louis.olsen@teligent.com
> Subject: RE: voting membership rules
>
>
> I guess there is nothing stopping you from taking a vote at a plenary
> meeting to re-define the quorum for an upcoming interim...that way all of
> the quorum problems go away.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
> At 00:10 26/09/99 +0100, John Messenger wrote:
> >Roger,
> >
> >A useful way to deal with the likely unquorateness of interims is to
> >pre-authorise certain actions at the preceding plenary. 802.5 typically
> >takes a plenary vote to begin a ballot, and then another vote
> stating that
> >if a majority (sometimes 75%) of those voting at the interim
> meeting vote to
> >send a subsequent draft out for ballot, then it should go out to ballot.
> >We've used this to pre-authorise committee letter ballots and also
> >forwarding to LMSC. There are some instances of this in our minutes at
> >http://www.8025.org/meetings/.
> >
> >Regards,
> > -- John
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> >> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
> >> Sent: 24 September 1999 09:42
> >> To: Roger B. Marks
> >> Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; SMarin@boschtelecominc.com;
> >> louis.olsen@teligent.com
> >> Subject: Re: voting membership rules
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Roger -
> >>
> >> Your message annotated, preceeded by >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> At 23:56 23/09/99 -0600, Roger B. Marks wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Gentlemen:
> >> >
> >> > I am a rookie Working Group Chair in need of some advice.
> >> >
> >> > In constructing rules for 802.16, my greatest challenge is
> >> voting rights. I
> >> > simply can't decipher the 802 rules on this. Several of us
> spent over an
> >> hour
> >> > with Jim Carlo in Montreal without resolution. I've been
> >> worried that I am
> >> > overcomplicating the situation, but I have concluded that the
> >> situation in
> >> > inherently complicated.
> >> >
> >> > I have looked at some other WG rules and have not found a clearer
> >> > explanation. I'd like to know more about how you interpret the
> >> rules in your
> >> > group.
> >> >
> >> > Here are the key 802 statements:
> >> >>
> >> >> "... Thereafter, voting membership in a Working Group is
> established by
> >> >> participating in the meetings of the Working Group at two out
> >> of the last
> >> >> four Plenary sessions... Membership starts at the third
> Plenary session
> >> >> attended by the participant. One duly constituted interim
> >> Working Group or
> >> >> task group meeting may be substituted for the Working Group
> >> meetings at one
> >> >> of the two Plenary sessions."
> >> >
> >> > "Membership is retained by participating in at least two of the
> >> last four
> >> > Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim Working
> >> Group meeting
> >> > may be substituted for one of the two Plenary meetings."
> >>
> >> >> One of the key statements that you have missed is that the
> >> Chair also has
> >> the power to grant membership as he/she sees fit.
> >>
> >> >> The rules are not entirely clear as to which meetings
> >> constitute "the last
> >> four". When you are at a Plenary meeting, does that meeting
> >> count as one of
> >> "the last four"? or are they the four most recent (and completed)
> >> plenaries? I
> >> believe that the correct interpretation is the latter.
> >> (1) First let me put off the question of interims and make sure I
> >> understand
> >> the basic idea. I understood from Jim that lists are updated only in
> >> conjunctions with plenaries, that new members are added at the
> >> opening of the
>
> >> plenary meeting, and that expired members are deleted at the end of the
> >> plenary. I think that these statements follow from the rules.
> >>
> >> Here are a couple of simple scenarios and my interpretation of
> the rules:
> >>
> >> Meeting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> >> Attendance: x x x - - - - - - x=attendance
> >> Status: v n v=becomes voter;
> >> n=becomes nonvoter
> >>
> >> >>I believe this is correct.
> >>
> >> Meeting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> >> Attendance: x x x - - x - - - x=attendance
> >> Status: v n v=becomes voter;
> >> n=becomes nonvoter
> >>
> >> >>Correct.
> >>
> >> I think I understand everything to this point.
> >>
> >> Here's a slightly more interesting case:
> >>
> >> Meeting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
> >> Attendance: x x x - x - - x x x=attendance
> >> Status: v n v v=becomes voter;
> >> n=becomes nonvoter
> >>
> >> Here someone loses voting rights after meeting 7 and regains them
> >> in time for
> >> meeting 9.
> >>
> >> >>Correct.
> >>
> >> One scenario that also follows from the rules is:
> >>
> >> Meeting: 1 2 3
> >> Attendance: x x - x=attendance
> >> Status: v v=becomes voter; n=becomes nonvoter
> >>
> >> In other words, you become a voting member at the third plenary
> >> even if you
> >> don't attend it. I think the requirement that people petition
> >> for membership
> >> at the meeting is in conflict with this rule, so I don't plan
> to implement
> >> this
> >> petitioning requirement.
> >>
> >> >>Wrong. The granting of membership occurs at the start of the
> >> third plenary
> >> attended (assuming the "last four" rule has been satisfied); so
> >> in this case,
> >> the individual will gain voting rights only on attendance at
> >> plenary meeting 4
> >> or 5. This is clear from the first passage you quote.
> >>
> >> (2) Now we introduce the interim meetings, and things get trickier. The
> >> problem
> >> is that the rules don't specify WHICH interim meetings are
> eligible. For
> >> example, if someone comes to an interim in 1981 and then turns up this
> >> November, does he become a voter the next time he shows up at
> a Plenary? A
> >> more
> >> typical example is this: a guy comes to a March Plenary and a May
> >> interim. Is
> >> he a voter in July? Does this violate the clause that "Membership
> >> starts at
> >> the
> >> third Plenary"? It seems to; you could establish voting membership from
> >> scratch
> >> in 4 months. How do you guys handle this?
> >>
> >> >>The substitution rule (you can substitute one interim for one of the
> >> plenaries) is reasonably clear on this, but I agree, if there has
> >> only ever
> >> been 1 interim and that occurred in 1981, then there is the
> possibility of
> >> mis-interpretation. I believe that what the rule should clarify
> >> here is that
> >> the only interim attendances that can be substituted are the ones
> >> that have
> >> occurred during the time-period betweem now and the first of
> the last four
> >> plenaries. In other words, the test for gaining membership becomes:
> >>
> >> >>"If you are building membership, and you are attending a
> >> plenary meeting,
>
> >> and
> >> you have either attended two out of the last four plenaries or
> >> have attended
> >> one of the last four plenaries plus one interim meeting that
> occurred in
> >> between any two of the last four plenaries, then you have
> achieved voting
> >> status."
> >>
> >> >>Similarly, for maintaining membership:
> >>
> >> >>"If you have either attended two out of the last four
> plenaries or have
> >> attended one of the last four plenaries plus one interim meeting
> >> that occurred
> >> in between any two of the last four plenaries, then you have
> >> maintained your
> >> voting status."
> >>
> >> One of the rules I'm considering is allowing an interim to
> >> substitute ONLY for
> >> the preceding Plenary. This would require a minimum of 6
> months to gain
> >> voting
> >> rights. If I don't do this, I'll probably let the interim credit
> >> be applied to
> >> either the preceding or following Plenary but not to any other.
> >>
> >> >>I believe that is a tighter constraint than is currently
> >> applied in other
> >> WGs.
> >>
> >> (3) This is a comment, not a question: I think that the rules should be
> >> revised
> >> to take into account the existence of and importance of interim
> >> meetings. Like
> >> many other groups, we are planning three interims a year. People
> >> can maintain
> >> membership by attending two out of four plenaries, which is
> three meetings
> >> every two years. Three out of twelve, in my opinion, is insufficient to
> >> justify
> >> continued voting rights.
> >>
> >> >>This seems at variance with your statement on substitution. If
> >> you believe
> >> interims and plenaries are of equal importance, surely you should be
> >> travelling
> >> in the direction of giving equal credit for attendance at either.
> >> If you are
> >> suggesting a "mininum time served" rule should be imposed, then
> >> it would be
> >> better separated from the meeting rule.
> >>
> >> The voting rights rule reduces the incentive for people to attend
> >> interims. At
> >> our interim last week, we ended up with less than a quorum. It
> >> didn't hurt us
> >> much, but it could in the future. For instance, my project plan
> >> has us making
> >> our key decisions at a May 2000 interim. If we don't have a
> >> quorum, we could
> >> have real problems.
> >>
> >> >>It is not unusual for interim meetings to be non-quorate; this
> >> does not stop
> >> the working group from functioning. If decisions need to be
> >> taken, then the
> >> interim meeting's decisions can be ratified at the next plenary
> >> (if the issue
> >> can stand a 2 month delay) or ratified by email ballot (if
> more urgent).
> >>
> >> I'm getting off the topic, but I'd appreciate any advice on
> how I can keep
> >> from
> >> being completely hosed if I don't have a quorum. Right now, I
> >> have two ideas:
> >>
> >> -Make decisions by letter ballot.
> >> -Get the inactive voting members off the rolls by:
> >> -deleting members who fail to vote in letter ballots.
> >> -offering inactive members the option to resign.
> >> -ensuring that the rules are interpreted to delete inactive
> >> members. See
> >> (4) below:
> >>
> >> >>I don't see anything to prevent you doing all of the above. But as
> >> commented
> >> earlier, non-quorate interims do not prevent work from being done.
>
> >>
> >> (4) For a new WG, 802 doesn't include any specific rules except that:
> >> >
> >> > "All persons participating in the initial meeting of the
> Working Group
> >> become
> >> > voting members of the Working Group."
> >> > >>I believe as WG chair you have the right to define such a
> >> rule if you see
> >> > fit (see my comment above).
> >>
> >> Strictly interpreted, the rules says that my voting members (who
> >> became so by
> >> attending last July) will lose their voting rights at the end of
> >> the November
> >> plenary if they don't attend; they will not have attended two
> of the last
> >> four.
> >> Of course, there have only been two, but the rules don't provide
> >> any kind of
> >> allowance for that. One might say that one of two is enough,
> >> given that there
> >> have only _been_ two. However, I prefer the stricter interpretation and
> >> plan to
> >> use it. Note that people who lose voting rights after November
> >> can regain it
> >> fairly quickly:
> >>
> >> Meeting: 1 2 3 4
> >> Attendance: x - x - x=attendance
> >> Status: v n v v=becomes voter; n=becomes nonvoter
> >>
> >> >>Not quite...I believe the strict interpretation is that he/she only
> >> becomes a
> >> voter at meeting 4 if he/she attends the meeting and it is a
> plenary (see
> >> earlier). But as this is a startup situation that is not
> handled by the
> >> rules,
> >> I guess you get to call the shots. (Typical software bug
> >> here...it handles
> >> the
> >> normal cases, but not the exceptions...)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>