| Folks-
Come on, this is stupid. It was proposed that the spreadsheet would be a live document on-line That would mean that: - it would NOT be on Mentor (with its version control) - thus could have a constant URL (which would appear on the agenda) So clicking on that URL during the meeting will bring up the vote on the screen.
I see no burden on the Recording Secretary.
Geoff On Jun 15, 2016, at 11:45 PMPDT, James P. K. Gilb < gilb@ieee.org> wrote:
PatI don't see it as a burden on the recording secretary either because I no longer hold that position.If I was the recording secretary, I would see it as a burden and either refuse to do it or do such a bad job that no one asked me to do it again.IMHO.James GilbOn 06/14/2016 04:11 PM, Pat Thaler wrote:I don't see it as an additional burden. The Recording Secretary already
produces a draft agenda. You sent out a draft agenda Wednesday evening in
March with consent agenda items marked and an updated one on Thursday early
afternoon.
Getting the consent agenda requests to the Recording Secretary 48 hours in
advance would support you putting them on an agenda to Wednesday night or
Thursday morning - not "dropping everything". Since the supporting
materials are requested 24 hours in advance, you would have 24 hours to get
the agenda out so people can use it as a checklist when going through the
supporting materials.
Regards,
Pat
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:34 AM, John D'Ambrosia <jdambrosia@gmail.com>
wrote:
Pat –
Seeing your comment below – regarding notification
While I understand the desire to make life easier on the EC members by
centralizing all requests through the recording secretary – the reality is
you also create a pipeline here, and shift all the burden to the Rec
Secretary to drop everything in order to get notifications out to meet the
time requirements. Translated – individuals will wait to the last
possible moment to send it out – shifting all the burden on the recording
secretary to get it out at that moment then.
Whoever is recording secretary is likely to be involved in other
activities on Thursday that could then preclude “dropping everything”
So i believe the EC reflector should be copied on the request – or some
sort of entry page be created that would shift the burden onto individuals
to make requests for consent agenda items.
John
*From:* owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org] *On
Behalf Of *Pat Thaler
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 7, 2016 6:51 PM
*To:* STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [802SEC] Consent agenda guideline
Here is possible text:
The following should be considered for inclusion on the consent agenda
upon request:
Information items such as:
1. Presentation of the Tutorial schedule at the opening meeting, only
if all presentations have been given to the Recording Secretary according
to the guidelines.
2. Other pro-forma information items
and motions such as:
1. First renewal of a Study Group (either ECSG or WGSG)
2. Public statements (e.g., press releases, responses to regulatory
bodies, liaison statements, etc.) that have been announced to the EC email
reflector made available to the EC members
3. Approval of meeting minutes from previous meetings if they have
been announced to the EC email reflector and distributed 1 week in advance
of the plenary
4. Other motions that are expected to pass without discussion
including motions to progress drafts to Sponsor ballot or RevCom.
Requests for items to be on the consent agenda should be made to the
Recording Secretary* at least 48 hours before the meeting start. All
supporting documentation for items on the consent agenda other than minutes
and WG vote counts should be uploaded to the consent agenda group on the EC
document server at least 24 hours before the start of the meeting.
Working Group vote counts should be provided by one hour before the start
of the meeting.**
*During the meeting, John suggested that requiring this to be sent to
everyone would get the notification out sooner and we were already over
time so I didn't respond. Part of the intent of this proposal is to get the
information consolidated so one doesn't have to comb through emails to find
it since it is too easy to miss something. By sending all requests to the
secretary well in advance, EC members can use the list of consent agenda
items on the agenda as a guide to what should have supporting
documentation.
** We are discussion how to provide the vote counts with minimal pain to
the chairs and reviewers. Possibly via shared spreadsheet for the consent
agenda items where chairs can input the vote counts for their items.
Regards,
Pat
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Pat Thaler <pat.thaler@broadcom.com>
wrote:
Here is the current text from the Chair's Guidelines:
The following should be considered for inclusion on the consent agenda
upon request:
1) First renewal of a Study Group (either ECSG or WGSG)
2) Public statements (e.g., press releases, responses to regulatory
bodies, liaison statements, etc.) that have been announced to the EC email
reflector made available to the EC members 24 hours in advance of the start
of the meeting.
3) Presentation of the Tutorial schedule at the opening meeting, only if
all presentations have been given to the Recording Secretary according to
the guidelines.
4) Other pro-forma information items
5) Meeting minutes from previous meetings if they have been announced to
the EC email reflector and distributed 1 week in advance.
As currently written it has deadlines for some items but not all. And each
item with a deadline has a different deadline.
Since meeting minutes are often lengthy and should be available well
before the meeting, it makes sense for them to have a deadline well before
the meeting. "1 week in advance" is a bit vague. I assume 1 week before the
opening plenary was intended, not 1 week before the time the consent agenda
is to be approved.
The deadline of 24 hours in advance that was mentioned on the call appears
in 2) which applies to public statements.
Items regarding progression of drafts aren't covered by any of the
categories. We approved such items on the consent agenda for the call.
Since the language above only says "should be considered" and doesn't
prohibit other items.
Looking back at minutes from 2015 through now, I can't find any other
cases where we had draft progression motions on the consent agenda.
*So, the first question is, are draft progression motions appropriate for
the consent agenda?*
I tend to think they are. These motions are often approved with little or
no discussion/debate. Where there is a question or controversy, they can
always be pulled off the agenda.
Comments?
---------- 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.
|