RE: voting membership rules
Tony-
The requirements for a Working Group quorum are defined in the 802
Operating Rules. They can not be diminshed for a WG by making a new rule
without the approval of the Exec.
In addition, I think it is a bad idea.
Geoff
At 07:55 AM 9/26/99 +0100, you wrote:
>
>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...)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
|=========================================|
| Geoffrey O. Thompson |
| Chair IEEE 802.3 |
| Nortel Networks, Inc. M/S SC5-02 |
| 4401 Great America Parkway |
| P. O. Box 58185 |
| Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185 USA |
| Phone: +1 408 495 1339 |
| Fax: +1 408 988 5525 |
| E-Mail: gthompso@nortelnetworks.com |
| Please see the IEEE 802.3 web page at |
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/index.html