RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Colleagues,
It looks like some of our colleagues believe that RR requires a quorum to be
50 % of the membership.
I feel that is not in concert with the way I read RR. On page 20, line 15,
it states that ..... [deleted text] ... a provision of the bylaws should
specify the number of members that shall constitute a quorum, which should
approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting
except in bad weather or extremely unfavorable conditions. end quote. The
text than elaborates to the effect that if the bylaws do not specify a
quorum, the quorum equals 50 % of the number of members.
So,
1. the rules of 0 % quorum at plenaries is a bit far stretched from the
description of RR
2. SEC is able to specify a quorum for interims in its operating rules that
is lower than the 50 % level currently specified.
I wholeheartedly support a quorum of a lower than 50 % level. I would advice
the working group chairs to check the statistics of their interim and
plenary attendance level and make a decision based on the lowest level of
attendance at a plenary.
Regards
---------------
Vic Hayes
Agere Systems Nederland B.V., formerly Lucent Technologies
Zadelstede 1-10
3431 JZ Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Phone: +31 30 609 7528 (Time Zone UTC + 2)
FAX: +31 30 609 7498
e-mail: vichayes@agere.com
http://www.orinocowireless.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:16 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob,
I have a (non-legal) opinion on "the ability of LMSC or any of its
WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules of Order in such a
significant way".
If Robert's Rules were supreme, and if they demanded a majority as a
quorum, then we would be in violation three times a year already.
However:
(1) We don't run under Robert's Rules (though some WGs may choose
to). The basic LMSC rules for WGs are not a subset of Robert's Rules;
e.g.:
* "The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues."
* "The operation of the Working Group has to be balanced between
democratic procedures that reflect the desires of the Working Group
members and the Working Group Chair's responsibility to produce a
standard, recommended practice, or guideline, in a reasonable amount
of time."
(2) Robert's Rules do not demand a majority. Instead, they say, for example:
* "The quorum of any other deliberative assembly with an enrolled
membership (unless the by-laws provide for a smaller quorum) is a
majority of all the members."
* "In all ordinary societies the by-laws should provide for a quorum
as large as can be depended upon for being present at all meetings
when the weather is not exceptionally bad."
* "It has been found impracticable to accomplish the work of most
voluntary societies if no business can be transacted unless a
majority of the members is present. In large organizations, meeting
weekly or monthly for one or two hours, it is the exception when a
majority of the members is present at a meeting, and therefore it has
been found necessary to require the presence of only a small
percentage of the members to enable the assembly to act for the
organization, or, in other words, to establish a small quorum."
Roger
>I have to jump in here, too. I have very strong feelings about the quorum
>issue. It is not just about making progress versus having to wait for 802
>plenary cycles. It is about meeting (at least in part) the "open and
>public" standards development process that helps to keep the IEEE and LMSC
>out of anti-trust hot water. Before we expend too many more minutes on
>this, I would like to have a legal opinion from the IEEE legal staff as to
>the ability of LMSC or any of its WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules
>of Order is such a significant way.
>
>I am completely against reducing the quorum requirement. Our process is
all
>about achieving consensus. Allowing a group to make what can be
significant
>decisions with much less than half the voting membership participating is a
>road to longer, not shorter periods for developing positions and standards,
>in my opinion.
>
> -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:04 PM
>To: carlstevenson@agere.com; mjsherman@research.att.com;
r.b.marks@ieee.org;
>stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
>Carl,
>
>Assuming the proposal includes a quorum requirement and is
>specific to RR-TAG (or 802 makes a decision when a TAG is
>created on whether they use that rule), then it seems
>a reasonable proposal.
>
>TAGs can be created for many purposes and not all of those
>purposes have the need that RR-TAG does for fast turn around
>of unexpected (or uncontrollable) events. Some might also
>not have the size and regular participants to make this work.
>I think this rule should only apply where that special need exists.
>(If one thinks that need is not necessary to justify the rule,
>then 802.1 would certainly meet "modest size group of regular
>participants so why would it be a TAG rule?)
>
>A quorum rule helps ensure that the chair makes a reasonable
>attempt to schedule the meeting and get notice out well enough
>that people had the ability to attend. (When we add it to
>the rules it will apply to chairs after you so trusting your
>judgement alone is not enough. Also, having reasonable safeguards
>in the rules helps protect the TAG Chair and 802 SEC against
>accusations of mis-use if a controversy arises.)
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:24 AM
>To: 'Matthew Sherman'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
>I also like Roger's suggestion ... in fact, it
>is pretty much precicely where I hoped that this
>discussion on WG meeting quorums would go when I
>made my intial comments.
>
>As a "sidebar," I would comment is that, for the 802.18
>RR-TAG, I am intending to propose the ability (through
>a TAG rules change proposal at the July SEC meeting),
>for teleconference meetings to be held when required
>(with reasonable notice, noting that I expect the RR-TAG
>to be a modest sized group of regular participants for
>the most part).
>
>The reason for this is simple:
>The Radio Regulatory environment is sometimes quite
>dynamic, relative to even 2 month meeting cycles, and
>I can't ask the FCC for an extension of time on comment
>periods too frequently, or I will "wear out my welcome."
>(Had I not gotten the extension of time, we would not
>have been able to respond by the original filing deadline
>to the ARRL's Petiton for Reconsideration ...)
>
>I would hasten to point out 2 things:
>
>1) I don't have a burning desire to make more work
>for myself and others by calling such teleconference
>meetings unless they are necessary to respond to
>regulatory proceedings in a timely manner.
>
>and
>
>2) As was the case a week or so ago, the output
>document will be subject to a vote of the SEC
>to become an "IEEE 802 position" ... and an 802.18
>Position statement would be subject to a minimum
>of a 5 day review by the SEC, according to LMSC rules.
>
>
>Carl
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:51 AM
>> To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger,
>>
>> I like what you suggest.
>>
>> Mat
>>
>> Matthew Sherman
>> Technology Consultant
>> Communications Technology Research
>> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>> Room B255, Building 103
>> 180 Park Avenue
>> P.O. Box 971
>> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:25 AM
>> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Carl. In 802.16, our sessions are similar whether or not
>> the SEC is meeting the same week. The agenda is basically the same,
>> and the turnout is similar. Over the last eight sessions at 802
>> plenaries, we averaged 119 participants; for our last eight interims,
>> the average was 104. ["Participants" are those who met the "75%
>> presence" test.]
>>
>> It's important to remember _why_ we treat a Working Group meeting
>> differently depending on whether or not the SEC meets in conjunction
>> with it. The rules gives us the answer explicitly: "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."
>>
>> 802.16 meets every two months according to schedule, with the "time
>> and place is established well in advance." It's to meet this type of
>> schedule that I am suggesting that we change the rules to apply the
>> same advance-notice test to _all_ WG meetings, regardless of whether
>> or not they are in conjunction with an LMSC plenary.
>>
>> Also, in special cases, interim meetings may crop up without much
>> advance notice. We ought to have a rule to cover them too.
>>
>> Here is a new version of my proposed rules change. I have tried to
>> incorporate the concerns I have heard on the reflector:
>>
>> "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with an LMSC
>> Plenary session since the Plenary session date and location are
>> 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. Work may also be conducted at interim Working Group
>> sessions whose program of work, date, and location are authorized,
>> with at least 75% approval, in a Working Group vote or letter ballot
>> at least thirty days in advance. This authorization may also include
>> the empowerment of the interim session to act without a quorum on
>> specific issues, such as forwarding a draft to Working Group Letter
>> Ballot."
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>> At 9:25 AM -0400 02/06/06, Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:
>> >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
>> >>
>>