RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob,
I realize full-well that my view is "wireless-centric."
However, I believe that the principles that Roger, Mike,
Mat, and I have put forward could, with proper consideration,
be a step forward in progressing work.
Please bear in mind that the sugestion ONLY applies to
WG meetings that are not held in conjunction with a full
802 plenary ... NOT to the TGs under those WGs ...
The entire idea is imply to assure that WG work can
progress at 2 month intervals rather than 4 month
intervals.
The current interim quorum rules seem to be falling
short, at least in the wireless WGs ...
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:09 PM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
> Carl:
>
> I respectfully disagree. Though you do mention a wireless
> perspective, I
> would have to good naturedly label it as wireless myopia.
> 802.3 doesn't
> hold interim Working Group meetings. In 802.3 we
> occasionally (frequently)
> find it convenient to have Task Groups meet separately. In
> some cases, this
> is because of geographical preference, in others ballot
> schedules. (There
> have been four separate 802.3 interim meetings since the
> March plenary.) I
> am content with the current interim quorum rules.
>
> --Bob Grow
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:26 AM
> To: 'pat_thaler@agilent.com'; billq@attglobal.net
> Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
> SEC Colleagues,
>
> I tend to be of the view that the distinction
> between interims and plenaries has become somewhat
> artificial and outdated as far as WGs go ...
>
> Yes, attendance is higher at plenaries ... but,
> at least in the wireless WGs, attendance at
> interims is substantial. The people who are
> dedicated to advancing the work (and who are
> doing the bulk of it) are the ones who take the
> time and expend the money and effort to attend
> the interims.
>
> I am inclined to believe that those who are
> really doing the bulk of the work should not
> be held back by those who are not dedicated
> enough to attend the interims.
>
> I think there should be a way to allow work to
> progress at interims, even if attendance is somewhat
> short of a quorum (based on total voters), based on
> the concept I've outlined above ... that those who
> are doing the bulk of the work should not be held back
> by those who are not the real "worker bees"
> (and ultimately frustrated ... something I've seen
> of late when this issue has prevented progress)?
>
> I haven't formulated an actual proposal on how to
> accomplish this, but simply want to try to stimulate
> some thought and discussion in this direction.
>
> Regards,
> Carl
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:45 PM
> > To: billq@attglobal.net; pat_thaler@agilent.com
> > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> > I agree, though the concept of binding ballots is a bit difficult.
> > I believe they could authorize a non-Plenary meeting to do the
> > sort of things authorized for a task force meeting - e.g. work
> > on ballot comment resolution, prepare a draft for recirculation
> > ballot - things that are reversable at the plenary and material
> > being prepared for working group letter ballots. If they couldn't
> > hold this kind of meeting, one couldn't hold a task force meeting.
> >
> > The hard part is for a chair to draw the line on what can be
> > done at an interim and what can't. We have been doing it in
> > 802.3 for task force meetings for years, are fairly conservative
> > on how much rope we give a task force and have a pretty good
> > feel from experience on where the boundaries are, but it is hard
> > to transfer judgement.
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:15 PM
> > To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
> > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >
> > Pat,
> >
> > I was trying to comment on the legality under the current
> > LMSC rules of
> > the practice of a WG voting to authorize a non-Plenary
> > meeting of the WG
> > to conduct binding ballots without a quorum.
> >
> > I was not trying to comment on the proposed rule change.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > wlq
> >
> > "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill,
> > >
> > > I am confused by your message. The discussion is about
> > changing 802 quorum
> > > requirements rather than about overriding 802 quorum requirements.
> > >
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:15 PM
> > > To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
> > > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > > Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > The question of a WG meeting without a quorum and that does
> > not occur
> > > during an 802 Plenary week being able to pass motions is
> > currently dealt
> > > with I believe by the combination of Sections 5.1.4.2.1
> and 5.1.4.6.
> > >
> > > 5.1.4.2.1 states that a WG quorum must be present at such
> a meeting.
> > >
> > > 5.1.4.6 states that the LMSC rules take precedence of WG rules.
> > >
> > > As a result, a WG may not override the quorum requirement for a WG
> > > meeting that does not occur during an 802 Plenary week as
> > that would be
> > > in conflict with the LMSC rules which take precedence.
> > >
> > > wlq
> > >
> > > pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Roger,
> > > >
> > > > I think that the amount of advance time before the
> meeting is less
> > > > important than the meeting (and its range of business) being
> > > > approved by the working group.
> > > >
> > > > If a Working Group can authorize a committee (which we
> often call
> > > > a task force) to conduct business between plenaries, then it can
> > > > authorize a "committee of the whole" to do the same thing. When
> > > > we do that for the task force (or a study group), the charter
> > > > of work they can do is fairly clear - bounded by a PAR (or to
> > > > develop a PAR). Any decisions made to alter that charter (e.g.
> > > > changing the objectives for the PAR) are subject to review
> > > > and approval or rejection during the working group session
> > > > at the plenary (or at an interim with a quorum). If a Working
> > > > Group is going to do something similar then I believe it should
> > > > similarly bound the scope when authorizing the meeting.
> > > >
> > > > I would alter the your text to
> > > > "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
> > > > Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
> > > > established well in advance. Work may be conducted at
> > interim Working
> > > > Group sessions whose program of work, date and location
> > are agreed to
> > > > by vote at a plenary at least one month in advance of
> the meeting.
> > > > Technical decisions made without a quorum at such interims are
> > > > subject to review and modification at the plenary unless the
> > > > Working Group has preauthorized a decision such as forwarding
> > > > to Working Group ballot."
> > > >
> > > > Pat
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:31 AM
> > > > To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> > > > Subject: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> > > >
> > > > Dear SEC,
> > > >
> > > > I think that we should think about revising the 802 rules
> > to clarify
> > > > the quorum situation for WG Interim Sessions. I think
> > that WGs need
> > > > to know how to take actions that won't be later called
> > into question
> > > > on quorum grounds. The extra uncertainty isn't good for anyone.
> > > >
> > > > I think we have too many continuing question marks on
> this issue.
> > > > Some WGs have no Interim Sessions, though their Task
> > Forces do meet.
> > > > In other cases, Interim WG meetings are held between all LMSC
> > > > Plenaries.
> > > >
> > > > Also, some WG's will arrange for a vote, at the WG Plenary, to
> > > > authorize a WG to meet and transact business, with our without a
> > > > quorum, at an upcoming Interim. My understanding has
> been that not
> > > > all SEC members accept the legitimacy of this practice.
> > > >
> > > > We also face questions of what to in the absence of a
> > quorum. Some go
> > > > by Robert, who says "The only business that can be
> > transacted in the
> > > > absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a
> quorum, to fix
> > > > the time to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take
> > a recess."
> > > > Others are more liberal, to varying degrees.
> > > >
> > > > Then we have the question of when the quorum applies.
> > Does the Chair
> > > > need to check for it? Is it assumed, unless a quorum
> call arises?
> > > > What if no quorum call arises and someone later, after
> > the session,
> > > > challenges the presence of a quorum? Does a quorum at any
> > point in a
> > > > session, or in a meeting, suffice to cover the entire session?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to think about a rules change to resolve the
> > problem. First,
> > > > however, I'd like to probe where people stand on this
> issue to see
> > > > what kind of rules change would be likely to pass.
> > > >
> > > > To get things started, here is what I would propose. In
> > 5.1.4.2.1, I
> > > > would change:
> > > >
> > > > "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
> > > > Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
> > > > established well in advance. A quorum is required at
> other Working
> > > > Group meetings."
> > > >
> > > > to:
> > > >
> > > > "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with the
> > > > Plenary session since the Plenary session time and place is
> > > > established well in advance. The same is true of other
> > Working Group
> > > > sessions whose date and location are announced at least
> > three months
> > > > in advance. In other cases, Working Groups are authorized
> > to meet and
> > > > transact business. However, no technical vote at such a
> meeting is
> > > > valid unless quorum is established immediately before, after, or
> > > > during the vote, or unless Working Group action without a
> > quorum has
> > > > been previously authorized by the Working Group."
> > > >
> > > > Could you support a change like this?
> > > >
> > > > I'm personally open to other ideas, but I would like an
> > unambiguous
> > > > LMSC policy.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Roger
> >
>