Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC telecon meetings

[Geoff Thompson <thompson@ieee.org>]

Paul-
In my view, this proposal helps substantially except that we need to be 
careful on the open meeting aspect.
That means that the conference calls would require:
    - sufficient advance notice of the conference call
    - sufficient distribution of the advance notice
    - sufficient conference ports available for observers
And, since this would be a significant change in process (even if not in 
rules) then I don't think we should do it until after the next Plenary 
so that we can adjust the expectations of our constituency at that time.

Geoff

On 4/26/10 11:10 AM, Paul Nikolich wrote:
> Steve,
>
> That is a very interesting suggestion--it gives us time to hash things 
> out in real time and then make a quick decision in non-real, 
> rule-compliant time...hmmm.
>
> --Paul
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shellhammer, Steve" 
> <sshellha@QUALCOMM.COM>
> To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim 
> EC telecon meetings
>
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > One way to deal with this is to hold a non-voting meeting where we 
> > discuss motions and then to have a post-meeting electronic ballot, on 
> > each motion. So the discussion could take place during the call.  We 
> > could even have a straw poll and it there is controversy discuss what 
> > the controversy is.
> >
> > The main issue is the overhead of having the electronic ballot.  
> > Maybe a simple spreadsheet could be used to combine all the motions 
> > onto a single spreadsheet and people could just enter their votes.  
> > It is more overhead but it would be helpful to the WGs on motions to 
> > go to Sponsor ballot and RevCom.  We might end up with less 
> > conditional motions to go to Sponsor ballot and RevCom since WGs 
> > would not have to wait 4 months.
> >
> > I believe this works with the current rules.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:34 AM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: Re: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of 
> > interim EC telecon meetings
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I don't think 2 quite covers the response I gave. My points were
> > -- we already have continuous processing available via email votes 
> > except for submittal of PARs to NesCom.
> > PARs to NesCom should continue to be an action taken only at plenaries
> > (except perhaps for corrigenda)
> > email is best for continuous processing of approval to go to sponsor 
> > ballot or RevCom
> > -- therefore, I don't support having an interim EC meeting for these, 
> > but I could see one to deal with the topics and coordination that get 
> > short shrift during a busy plenary
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pat
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** 
> > [mailto:STDS-802-SEC@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:04 PM
> > To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [802SEC] straw poll summary of on the question of interim EC 
> > telecon meetings
> >
> > All,
> >
> > So far the responses generally fall into two categories:
> >
> > 1) good idea, need to work out details, go for it
> > (Apurva, Buzz, Steve,  Bruce, Jon, JohnH, Subir, Mike)
> >
> > 2) not a bad idea, have concerns, proceed with caution
> > (Pat, Mat, Tony, James, Geoff, JohnL, David)
> >
> > Any further opinions?  A few people (BobH, Roger, Mark) have yet to 
> > weigh
> > in.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --Paul
> >
> >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Nikolich" 
> > > <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
> > > To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:19 AM
> > > Subject: [802SEC] straw poll on interim EC telecon meetings
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear EC members,
> > >
> > > I'd like to get your feedback on holding an EC meeting via 
> > > teleconference
> > > between plenary sessions (for example in the 1st week of June, 
> > > October and
> > > February).  My though is we'd hold a 2 hour telecon to make 
> > > decisions on
> > > time-critical items such as PAR approvals, Sponsor Ballot initiation
> > > approvals, RevCom submissions, etc.
> > >
> > > I'd make sure we'd have an agenda posted 30 days in advance an all the
> > > materials necessary to make such decisions available for review at 
> > > least
> > > one week before the telecon.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?  Please provide your feedback by 23APR.  I'll summarize the
> > > feedback and if the response is positive, I'd like us to consider 
> > > holding
> > > the first such meeting 1pm-3pm ET Friday 04JUN2010.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > 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.
> >
> > ----------
> > 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.