Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs




Geoff: 

Adoption of WG rules is also probably best deferred.  

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:33 PM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: tony@jeffree.co.uk; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup
WGs


All-

I think this is all pretty good. My first impression (undiminished my 
nit-picking detailed analysis) is that this is good enough that we
should 
go for it and see if it works.

We need to, pretty carefully, come up with a list of things that the WG 
can't do until it "becomes a consensus group".
First thoughts:
         All external (to 802) communications would have to be vetted by

the EC.
         No new PARs or revision PARs
         No Working Group Ballots
And possibly
         Co-locate all interims with another WG (for mentoring support).

We need to think about how some other stuff needs to be handled.
For example, can a pre-consensus group vote on objectives?
If they do, do they need to be re-voted at membership formation time?

Geoff

At 09:32 AM 7/28/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:

>Tony,
>
>Thanks for your feedback.
>
>>Roger -
>>
>>I think that the idea may have some potential; however, given that
what 
>>you propose introduces a rather definite distinction between "voting"
and 
>>"membership", I suspect that the impact in terms of changes to the
rules 
>>is rather greater than you state.
>
>There may be some other complications, but I don't think they would be 
>hard to address. The full rights of membership do go beyond voting (see

>5.1.3.4), so we could try to enlarge the rights of attendees in the 
>pre-membership period, but I think that the other rights could easily
be 
>managed without specific P&P on the topic.
>
>I wouldn't want to see a pre-membership WG run a letter ballot. We
should 
>add some language to prevent the initial Chair from appointing members
by 
>Chair's Discretion and then sending them a letter ballot.
>
>By the way, we do have a lot of experience with the "no-members,
everyone 
>can vote" policy, since Study Groups work that way. Note also that we 
>specifically forbid SGs from running letter ballots.
>
>>For example, it would be necessary to make it clear what kinds of
things 
>>can and can not be voted on before there are any members, to deal with

>>the case where the voters at the initial meeting vote to hold
elections.
>
>I think that my proposed language ("Initial appointments shall be valid

>until the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG 
>memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for
that 
>session.") is clear enough. It could be made more forceful, I guess.
>
>>Also, your proposal doesn't grant any credit for study group
participation.
>
>True, and I don't think it should. Membership couldn't be granted
before 
>the third session of the WG (or the fourth, if there are interims
between 
>plenaries). I expect the first few sessions to be pretty important and
to 
>take the WG a long way from its SG roots. Someone who wants to be a
member 
>should participate in two of them. Chair's Discretion can handle any 
>special cases.
>
>Roger
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Tony
>>
>>Roger B. Marks writes:
>>
>>>
>>>  Dear ExCom,
>>>
>>>  On Friday, I had some stimulating discussions with Geoff, Jerry,
and
>>>  Mark on what would be a good set of membership rules for startup
WGs.
>>>  Some things said during the rules debate also played a role in my
>>>  thinking. After reviewing the current rules again, I now have a
very
>>>  definite idea of a set of changes that would satisfy my concerns
and
>>>  would, I believe, also satisfy the other concerns I've heard. This
>>>  proposal is simple, and it is philosophically compatible with our
>>>  existing membership rules.
>>>
>>>  Here is my proposal:
>>>
>>>  (a) In 5.1.3.1, delete the first sentence and the following word
>>>  ("All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working
>>>  Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,").
>>>
>>>  (b) At the end of that first paragraph of 5.1.3.1, add the
following:
>>  > "In a new WG or TAG, all registered attendees may vote until such
>>  > time as the first WG or TAG memberships are established."
>>>
>>>  (c) In 5.1.2, change "Initial appointments, and temporary
>>>  appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals for
>>>  cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid
until
>>>  the end of the next Plenary session" to:
>>>
>>>  "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies
>>>  due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair
>>>  of the LMSC. Temporary appointments shall be valid until the end of
>>  > the next Plenary session. Initial appointments shall be valid
until
>>  > the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
>>  > memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled
for
>>  > that session."
>>  > ============================================================
>>>
>>>  Normally, the sequence would be:
>>>
>>>  (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
>>>  (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>>  (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
>>  > (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>>  (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
>>>  session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
>>>  the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
>>>  confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
>>>
>>>  Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting
privileges
>>>  shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three
meetings"
>>>  (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
>>>  sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be
earned
>>>  the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
>>>  members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
>>>  instead of two under the current rules.
>>>
>>>  I submit that this system could take a lot of the politics out of
the
>>>  WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
>>>
>>>  I'd appreciate your thoughts.
>>>
>>>  Roger
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Tony