FW: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Forwarded by request from Mark Klerer.
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:25 PM
To: 'Bob O'Hara '; Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); 'paul.nikolich@att.net'
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Bob, Mat and Paul
Bob you do raise an interesting prospect by stating that you are
"willing to
disenfranchise those members that can be shown not to have attended the
requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING GROUP."
You
state that this cannot be done since there were no previous sesions.
Well,
actually that is not correct. The WORKING GROUP had a "duly constituted
interim Working Group session" January 13-16, 2003. So it now actually
becomes a trivial exercise to identify those who have not "attended the
requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING GROUP."
All
one needs to do is look at the attendance roster of the January meeting
on
the website and compare that to the March session. There were some 60+
attendees in January including some who attended for the first time,
i.e.
were not participants in the SG.
I would also point that the the Operating Rules do not require the first
session (though it says meeting) to be at a plenary. The Op Rules also
allow
substitution of a duly constituted interim meeting for the meetings of a
pleanry session. So this approach would be entirley within the realm of
interpretation of the Op rules.
So I for one am willing to go with such an interpretation.
Mark Klerer
Mat: I would appreciate you forwarding this to the SEC mailing list.
Thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara
To: mjsherman@research.att.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Sent: 4/3/03 11:03 AM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
My opinion is that the interpretation of the rules published by the
chair of the SG appointed by Paul and affirmed by the SEC, one who
presumably has sufficient experience in the workings of the LMSC and the
P&P to hold the position, is valid and has granted membership to those
that were present for 75% of the meetings of the March session. I don't
agree with the chair's interpretation and consider it unduly
restrictive, given the actual language of the rule. But, that was what
was published to the study group and copies provided to the SEC chair
and other members of the SEC.
However, I am willing to disenfranchise those members that can be shown
not to have attended the requisite number of meetings at previous
sessions of the WORKING GROUP. Given that such evidence cannot be
produced, because there were no previous meetings of the working group,
any interpretation of the P&P membership retention rule that would
disenfranchise those members is clearly absurd. Just as some might say
that the members attended no previous sessions of the WG. I can say
that those same members attended ALL previous sessions of the WG.
Those that were present when the existing rules were crafted have
clearly indicated that the rules are intended to grant immediate
membership, so that the WG can begin conducting official business at its
first meeting (not session). Any interpretation of the retention rule
that immediately removes that membership is also clearly absurd, since
the WG can no longer continue to conduct business, not even at the
second meeting of the first session.
So, we have gotten ourselves into this fine mess and Mat has asked us to
use a procedure form Robert's Rules to interpret the P&P to get
ourselves out of it. Robert's says that the interpretation should be in
accordance with the intention at the time the rule was written. I have
seen nothing to contrary to the statements made that membership was
immediate and necessary to begin conducting business.
In my opinion, it is not the initial membership rule that is ambiguous,
but the retention rule, which does not account for the startup
conditions of the working group.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:35 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Hi Everyone,
So far, I haven't seen a lot of comment on my suggestion that we
interpret the rules. The email trail to date is given below. To
summarize what I have heard so far (based on the e-mail trail):
1) At least some of us believe that membership based on SG
attendance was originally discussed by 802 and intentionally avoided in
the current rules
2) Al least some of us believe that the intent of the current rules
was indeed to give anyone present at the initial meeting voting rights
under the assumption they would continue to attend
3) At least some of us believe that "meeting" really meant
"meeting", not "session" in the current new WG membership rules
4) At least some of up believe the chair of a new WG should have the
discretion to interpret "meeting" as "session" since participation is
only defined per session (currently)
In addition I have seen some side traffic concerning other process
issues relevant to the upcoming 802.20 elections. However, the focus of
my interpretation request is really on whether or not the membership in
802.20 is valid, not on the election process itself. I encourage others
to start dealing with that topic if they feel it is an issue. Based on
the comments to date, I would have to say that the rule in error is the
one that determines membership retention. Based on that my recommended
interpretation would be to interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention"
to read:
"Membership is retained by participating in at least two of
the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim
Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
two Plenary meetings. (In the case of a new working group with less than
4 meetings, it is assumed that the 4 plenary sessions prior to the
formation of the group were attended by the new WG members when
determining if membership is retained.)"
I want to clearly establish before the interim what the membership
status of 802.20 members will be for that meeting. This interpretation
would enforce that membership in that WG is maintained until it can
unambiguously be demonstrated that the retention requirements were not
met. If anyone objects to this interpretation please state so, and why
they believe so. I want to have a full 30 day ballot on an
interpretation and I want to make sure I get it right before I put it
forward. That is why I am trying to get inputs now. Please tell me
what you think.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:42 PM
To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Bob, I agree completely. The practice in the past has been to grant
voting rights based only on attendance at the first official meeting of
the first plenary session. But since our rules only refer to
"participation" in the first session, I am willing to allow the WG chair
to define exactly what is meant by participation. In this case however
where you only have a temporary chair who may have a stake in the
outcome of the voting this may very well become the minefield to which
you refer. Already there has been quite a bit of dickering over what
constitutes valid participation. That's why I think we need a re-run
with the rules clearly spelled out in advance, so that everyone has a
fair chance to participate. Let's hope Geoff can bring his usual
measure of sanity to the process. :-)
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:05 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Buzz may be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a slightly
different long term perspective as having been in the 802 trenches the
longest of any SEC member. Since 1981 I have participated in (and I
think had voting rights on): 802.2 (as an 802 voter), 802.3, 802.4
(when it was part of the Token DLMAC), 802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11.
I have had membership in two working groups at the same time. I have
been involved in the organization of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802
got dots, and either one or both of 802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member
at an initial meeting. My recollection is that received member rights
at an organizational meeting, independent of session attendance during
the plenary week. While long term historical perspective is
enlightening, it may also be a mine field.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:53 PM
To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Buzz,
Much appreciated, and very enlightening!
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Colleagues, Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to
consider.
As our now longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to the
intention of the current rules based on prior discussions going back to
when the rules were created. The intention behind section 5.1.3.1 was
that all attendees who participated in the first official plenary
meeting would be automatically granted full voting rights (membership)
on a grandfathered basis (as though they had attended the two prior
plenaries) so that there would be a pool of eligible members (voters) to
allow for quorum establishment and transaction of committee business.
Otherwise a new working group would be unable to transact any business
for two meetings, something that was deemed unacceptable. There was
consideration given to having a participation requirement based on the
preliminary activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection is
that study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable
entities, which were subject to changes and might not be fully attended
by the major players until such time as a PAR was officially approved.
So the intention was that the fairest basis was to allow everyone who
was willing to commit to active participation at the first official
meeting should be treated as equal participants and granted full
membership.
Every new Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this same
basic rule, so it has worked fairly well. However this is the very
first instance that I'm aware of, in which all of the officers elected
had not been participants of the prior Study group which created the
PAR. With the exception of Peter Tarrant, who led the Hi-Speed LAN
Study Group that ultimately morphed into 100BASE-T and 802.12, the
person who was chair of the Study Group has always been elected to Chair
the Working Group or TAG. There was some serious controversy about that
particular dynamic as well.
I personally believe that the correct course for us will be to maintain
the voters list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll call election at
the July plenary. Anyone who qualified as a voter in Dallas should be
entitled to vote in SF whether they attend the interim or not. Once the
outcome is officially recorded, the SEC can address any remaining issues
of block voting based on the data, rather than on a lot of hearsay and
opinion. At least there is some opportunity in the meantime to find
some compromise solutions which may allow the problem to solve itself.
Time heals all wounds. :-)
Thanx, Buzz
Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
Boeing - SSG
PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
(425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
Gentle-folks:
I wish to call to your attention to a particular section of Robert's
Rules. That section is the following from Article IX of Robert's Rules
(10th edition):
"If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if
possible, in harmony with other bylaws. The interpretations should be
in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw
was adopted, as far as this can be determined. Again, intent plays no
role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity
exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question.
The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as
practicable."
I am of the opinion that our "bylaws" (the LMSC P&P) are in fact
"ambiguous or doubtful" regarding the process of obtaining membership at
the start up of a working group. In particular we have from section
5.1.3.1 titled "Establishment":
"All persons participating in the initial meeting of the
Working Group become members of the Working Group."
On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention":
"Membership is retained by participating in at least two of
the last four Plenary session meetings. One duly constituted interim
Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
two Plenary meetings."
As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis)
in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with
one another. Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not
we intended "meeting" or "session" in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet
another interpretation) these two rules seem to conflict with one
another. Even taking the liberal view that meeting means session, after
the first session the general rules would kick in and all "members"
would seem to lose their membership in the WG.
All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should "fix"
this problem by the end of the July meeting. My concern is for the
beginning of the July meeting. Given what happened in March to 802.20,
I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these "bylaws" so that
we don't have a repeat of the last meeting. As indicated by Robert's
Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority vote. I believe
a motion could be put forward and then approved electronically prior to
the July meeting. But before I do that, I wanted to open this issue for
debate prior to making any motions so that I can make sure I make the
right motion (or perhaps chose not to make a motion at all).
Any comments on this topic?
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
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