Re: [802SEC] FW: Quorum
I'm in sympathy with the objective, but I think the proposed rule is a bit weak. In theory, including interims in the tally allows interims to settle down to a level much lower than at a plenary. For example, say we establish this rule now and plenaries have typically 50% of on-going voters in attendance (and they can have fewer since one only needs to attend one in four plenaries plus one interim every four plenaries to maintain voting rights.
The quorum for the next interim would then be 25%. If one just makes that for two interims in a row, then next interim the quorum would be about 19%. It settles out to being able to have interims with 1/3 the standing number at plenary sessions which seems awfully low to me. I'm not sure what the official tally of voting members present at an 802.3 plenary session, but I think I see fewer than 50% of the number of voting members in the voting tally (of course some voters may be present and not bother to raise their hands to abstain). So the suggested rule would allow interim quorum to drop to below 16%. It also requires possibly painful accounting. Does one do the count for attendance at a past session based on maximum total attendance during the previous session or only counting those voters who attended 75% of the previous session?
By that same logic, if we allow a vote at a plenary to establish an interim, it also may pass with 25% of voters voting for it and slightly less voting against it.
Possible solutions that I think I may find acceptable:
Keep a fixed quorum % but lower it to something like 25%. Rationale: 50% is a relatively high quorum compared to that used by other bodies and 25% is more representative of the kind of quorums we have at times (towards the end of the meeting when some have left for early flights) when conducting business at a plenary.
Similar to the proposal, but use a higher percentage and base it on the average of the last three plenaries - i.e. quorum is getting at least 75% of the number of voting members who signed in averaged over the last three plenaries.
Allow a vote of a supermajority of 75% at a plenary to waive the quorum requirement for a following interim. (I'm least comfortable with this one - it is the loosest I might be prepared to go.)
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Shellhammer, Steve [mailto:sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM]
Sent: Thursday, 21 July, 2005 9:34 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] FW: Quorum
Mat,
Given that the purpose of a Quorum is to make sure a significant
number of voters are in attendance, I am not sure this works. If you
have half your regular attendance, which may be about half your voters,
you only have 25% of your voters in attendance. Is that really okay?
Keep in mind, we can always send out an email ballot after the meeting.
Another idea I heard Jerry suggest was to fix the current P&P so
that we can empower an interim at the previous plenary. I guess it is
currently broken.
I thought I was overwhelmed with your P&P changes. Looks like
you keep coming up with new ones. I assume these would be balloted
electronically.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
[mailto:matthew.sherman@baesystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:02 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] FW: Quorum
Take 2 (with proprietary footer removed)....
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:58 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: FW: Quorum
Folks,
Mark Klerer suggested the rules change below. I think it's a good idea
and I am thinking of fronting it for him.
Comments?
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Klerer, Mark [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:26 PM
To: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Subject: Quorum
Matt
An idea on quorum rules:
In order to solve the quorum problem at interims I would and have
suggested that quorum be defined as 50% of the average number of
Participant members during the last 4 meetings (interim and plenary).
One could play around with whether it should be 3 or 4 meetings.
This will have the effect of more acurately reflecting acting and
ongoing participation and will not disenfranchise anyone.
Mark
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) <matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM>
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org <STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thu Jul 21 22:20:56 2005
Subject: [802SEC] LMSC Officer identification on Name Tags
Folks,
I've noticed that these days different groups follow different practices
about identifying the officers of their groups. I'm of the opinion that
identifying officers is generally a good idea. It makes it easier for
people to know who to talk to when they are not on stage. I plan to
make a motion tomorrow that name badges for LMSC plenary sessions
identify LMSC officers at the WG level and above. Any thoughts on that?
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.