RE: voting membership rules
Having suffered the angst of trying to get consensus on the LMSC Operating
Rules for 10 years I offer the following from countless discussions of the
attendance/voting rights issue.
The rationale behind the attendance rule is: ensure that voting rights go to
participants who are informed and up-to-speed on the Working Group's
business and are familiar with the standards development process (i.e., the
LMSC Operating Rules, and the Computer Society SAB rules, and IEEE-SA rules)
as they apply to Working Groups. Full participation at two of any four
plenary weeks has always been the golden rule for being current. Gaining
voting rights at the beginning of the third meeting was established as a
compromise between those who thought that full participation at three of
four meetings (rather than two of four) was the proper criteria for "being
adequately informed." This made it clear that being a part of the
activities that occur between plenary weeks (possible participation in
interim meetings, absorbing and responding to WG correspondence, and other
WG business) was integral to being an informed participant. Some individuals
held that interim meetings can sometimes be as instructive and productive as
the WG activities during the plenary week (maybe occasionally more so).
This is the genesis of allowing the WG Chair the option of counting one
interim meeting as part of the "qualifying participation." In the mind of
some vesting credit was to be allowed only when the interim meeting
addressed all of the work items before the WG, not meetings of study groups
or meetings that had less breadth of agenda than a plenary. Others have
interpreted this rule to allow vesting credit for any interim meeting. It
has been my interpretation (back when interpreting the rules was my
responsibility) that if an interim meeting was counted as part of the
process of gaining voting rights by a specific individual then that interim
meeting became part of the "two of the last four" for that individual until
the end of the fourth plenary following the credited interim meeting (or the
end of the third subsequent plenary if all three were missed).
Some of the recurring proposals to simplify the vesting of voting rights
are:
1. Always vest/remove rights at the beginning of a plenary -- rejected
because WG chairs do not want individuals who have already missed 3 of 4
plenary sessions to be counted in quorum requirements for interim meetings
or in ballot success requirements.
2. Always vest at the end of a plenary -- rejected because this reduces the
qualifying participation interval to potentially just a month (interim and
plenary).
3. Always count interim meetings -- rejected because it circumvents the
openness and fairness requirements of the standards development process that
LMSC has satisfied through the regular, predictable plenary meeting
schedule.
With respect to quorums: Clearly a Working Group can not change the quorum
requirement in any way without the approval of the Executive Committee. I
question the validity of any change of the quorum definition, even with EC
approval, without a formally adopted change in the LMSC Operating Rules.
Such a change would then require Computer Society SAB approval before
becoming effective.
John Montague
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 2:16 AM
To: John Messenger
Cc: Roger B. Marks; stds-802-sec@ieee.org; SMarin@boschtelecominc.com;
louis.olsen@teligent.com
Subject: RE: voting membership rules
John -
With the current rules, no-one can bank on whether an Interim meeting will
be quorate or not, so I don't see how that can come into decisions about
travel plans. Surely, making a decision at a pplenary meeting that makes
it absolutely clear as to whether an interim meeting will be able to take
meaningful votes gives a far better basis for people to decide which
meetings they want to attend than the current uncertainty as to whether an
interim meeting will achieve its quorum.
Regards,
Tony
At 17:34 26/09/99 +0100, John Messenger wrote:
>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...)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>