RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bob,
Thanks for clarifying what I was trying to point out
when I made the assertion that "there is no magical
difference between a wireless WG interim and a WG
meeting held in conjunction with all of 802" (may
not be a 100% exact quote from before).
That was the point I was making ... that the meetings
are full WG meetings, that they are so large that they
must be planned WELL in advance (thus they are properly
noticed), etc.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bob
> Heile Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:54 PM
> To: Grow, Bob; 'Rigsbee, Everett O'; 'Matthew Sherman'; 'Roger B.
> Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
> all
>
> I will just observe that the interim meetings of 11 and 15
> are now larger
> than all of 802 was just 3 years ago. With over 400
> attendees, meetings
> need to be planned over a year in advance and are no more
> movable than an
> 802 meeting would be. Both groups have held full working
> group interims
> for their entire existence. These are not random or
> unpredictable events
> and are no different than meetings held in conjunction with
> the rest of 802
> ( other than the fact we do not have to worry about the
> scheduled time for
> a closing SEC meeting). Additionally, some of the task
> groups have held ad
> hocs beyond the 6 regularly scheduled meetings a year.
> These are smaller
> and are only required to meet a 30 day notification rule.
> Much of this
> discussion seems to treat interim meetings as if they were
> task group ad
> hocs which may be the case with some WGs but has never been
> the case with
> 11 and 15. There is no way we could hold a random 400
> person meeting nor
> do we have any flexibility in last minute scheduling. As we
> consider the
> quorum discussion, we need to be sensitive to the kind of
> meeting we are
> talking about.
>
> Bob
>
>
> At 01:58 PM 6/7/02 -0700, Grow, Bob wrote:
>
>
> >Buzz:
> >
> >I understand your point, but in practice I don't really see
> much difference
> >between 3 months and 60 days. 60 days does not assure that
> the required
> >interim can be announced at the plenary meeting. I would
> assume interim
> >meetings need flexibility to schedule plus or minus some
> number of weeks
> >from the midpoint between plenaries. Skewing the meeting by
> weeks is often
> >required to meet Standards Board deadlines. If you need the
> meeting a
> >couple weeks before the midpoint, a 45 day notice might
> work, but not 60
> >days.
> >
> >--Bob Grow
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> >Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:46 PM
> >To: 'Matthew Sherman'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >
> >Roger, I do too, but suggest you follow Mike Takefman's
> lead and make the
> >pre-schedule time 60 days rather than 3 months, so that
> interims scheduled
> >and announced at the prior 802 plenary would qualify for
> plenary quorum
> >status.
> >
> >
> >Thanx, Buzz
> >Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >Boeing SSG
> >PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> >Ph: (425) 865-2443
> >Fx: (425) 865-6721
> >Email: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:51 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
> > >>
>
>
>
> Bob Heile, Ph.D
> Chair, IEEE 802.15 Working Group on Wireless Personal Area Networks
> Chair, ZigBee Alliance
> 11 Louis Road
> Attleboro, MA 02703 USA
> Phone: 508-222-1393
> Mobile: 781-929-4832
> Fax: 508-222-0515
> email: bheile@ieee.org
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3
iQA/AwUBPQH6DgK2hSca9giwEQJJsQCgy0nhm5zd7PTfMNtfU2rUwtlkomoAoLDn
M4NR77lrTYtZc/IhBI8b9Nlb
=Jw8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----