Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Matt,
I agree that it is Paul's job to rule on this. I also agree with the general principles you state. I should have Robert's Rules in front of me, but I had a hard drive failure a couple of weeks ago and haven't gotten around to reinstalling some of the software including my copy of Robert's Rules and the CD isn't with me at the moment. I recall that it had some pertinent discussion on the issue of quorum. It specifically stated something to the effect that there are cases where one can't vote to remove the rights of a minority and the example was not being able to vote to meet without a quorum though I can't recall whether the specifics covered only a vote at the meeting without the quorum or whether the example was a vote at the meeting without quorum or would have covered a vote in advance to waive quorum.
The Working Group can in general assign work to a subcommittee, but in the case of communications to a government body on behalf of a WG or TAG, our P&P has specific rules (from 14.2):
- Working Group or TAG communications with government bodies shall not be released without prior approval by a 75% majority of the Working Group or TAG. Such communications may proceed unless blocked by an EC vote. For position statements not presented for review in an EC meeting, EC members shall have a review period of at least five days; if, during that time, a motion to block it is made, release of the position statement will be withheld until the motion fails.
- Working Group or TAG communications shall be identified in the first paragraph as the position of only the Working Group or TAG and shall be issued by the Working Group or TAG Chair(s) and shall include the LMSC Chair in the distribution. Such statements shall not bear the IEEE or IEEE 802 logos.
So, doing that requires a Working Group vote and I don't think the approval can be replaced by a subcommittee vote. I'll leave it to Paul to rule on whether an advance vote to approve the work of a subcommittee is adequate. We do that in some cases such as to authorize forwarding of a draft to the next level after the ballot resolution subcommittee has completed its work or forwarding a liaison letter after some final editorial tweaking, but the content of what the WG is approving is pretty specifically known in those cases. I think that could extend to a vote to approve forwarding of the liaison letter on a specific topic to be still to be drafted by a subcommittee. If I was ruling, I wouldn't be comfortable that a blanket motion to waive quorum at a future meeting can substitute for the WG/TAG approval or allow a non-quorum meeting to provide that approval.
On the issue about not having a vote of other Working Group's on the letter, it is clear that such a vote isn't required and we don't have any rules requiring groups to have their interims together. The protection of other WGs from having a communication they would have a problem with is the 5 day review period (review, not approval) that we are conducting now which allows an EC motion to withhold the letter. In the absence of a motion, it will go forward.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) [mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:10 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Jerry,
Only the Chair (Paul) can rule on stuff like this. Working from memory
(without Robert's rules in front of me) I believe that an Interim
meeting can be held by any WG, TG, or TF with due notice. I believe
common practice is to presume a Quorum is present unless challenged
during the interim meeting. I did not hear that there was a challenge
so personally I would presume that the process was valid based on this
alone.
I don't think it is critical, but I also believe that (unless prohibited
in a groups P&P) decisions may be deferred to a subcommittee on behalf
of the committee. (It may not be wise to do so but it can be done). I
don't know of any specific P&P language off hand that would prohibit the
subcommittee (those showing up at the interim who were empowered to take
actions on behalf of the committee) deciding to forward this document on
behalf of the committee, so again I personally feel it is valid
procedurally.
If anyone else feels different I invite them to comment.
Regards,
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: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:15 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
I do not understand your response.
At this point, I request that Mat and/or Paul rule on whether what you
want
to do is valid. If the 802 Chair or Vice Chair states the document was
approved
in a valid manner then I have no problem with the content.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/21/2005 1:09:03 PM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@nortel.com writes:
Jerry,
I see where this is going. Block voting to block the document.
Obviously we need to clarify the status of wireless groups who choose to
meet away from a joint interim. Some hold the view that having the
non-technical regulatory group meet with regulators is useful. The
enabling
motions used in the past in .18 were allowed - now they are not.
Are you making a motion to block the input? If so then it seems logical
that
an email ballot of the EC is needed.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 13:02
To: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
I assume by your answer that quorum was not present when the document
was
approved. Therefore my point is the same. I disapprove and I do not
believe
this document has valid approval to move forward.
How many voters were present when the document was approved?
Regards,
Jerry
In a message dated 9/21/2005 12:24:02 PM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@nortel.com writes:
Jerry,
As I responded to Carl, we had an enabling motion from the July Plenary
to
conduct business without an interim. I'll be happy to provide that to
you.
As I understand it that is how my predecessor was able to conduct
business
at an interim meeting.
Since there seems to be a precedent, and those who have participate in
.18
under the previous chair felt that we had met the same requirement, I
presume that .18 was able to function normally at an interim.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 09:31
To: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
Did 802.18 have quorum at the Interim this week?
If there was no quorum, I vote disapprove.
It is my understanding that all motions for approving documents or any
other
official business conducted at an Interim without quorum requires a
reaffirmation vote at a Plenary. A TAG or Working Group cannot waive the
quorum requirement. The members cannot only approve work items for the
Interim or conference calls in advance that will need an affirmation
vote
later. I believe Stuart clarified this for 802.11 members at the May
interim
also.
However, you want a final ruling on this from Mat and Paul.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/19/2005 10:03:49 AM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@NORTEL.COM writes:
Please find enclosed 802.18's comments in response to the European
Commission 2.6 GHz consultation. The comment period closes 15 September
but the membership believes it is beneficial to file a response. This
was approved by unanimous consent.
I would like to be able to forward this the European Commission on 25
September.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
<<18-05-0033-r0-0000-EC_2.6GHz_Band_Consultation Response.doc>>
----------
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.