Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
Bob, a natural consequence of your assertion and cataloging of facts is that
we should change the bylaws to allow these interims to be counted as plenary
meetings. I am no longer a voting member of the SEC, and so will just float
this idea to see if any of you want to pick it up and move forward with it.
Fundamentally I support the concept of being able to carry on our work
during interim meetings the same as we do during plenary meetings.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Heile" <bheile@ieee.org>
To: "Grow, Bob" <bob.grow@intel.com>; "'Rigsbee, Everett O'"
<everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>; "'Matthew Sherman'"
<mjsherman@research.att.com>; "'Roger B. Marks'" <r.b.marks@ieee.org>;
<stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:54 PM
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
>
>