[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: stds-802-16: Request to amend joint 802-16/ETSI-BRAN-HA minut es


[To avoid minutiae, skip to the 3rd paragraph]

After checking Robert's Rules (note that Roger added to the 802.16 web site a
link to an on-line version: http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm), I
agree with Scott, that minutes should record just motions and their resolutions.
But if Demos still wants to amend the minutes, even if it's outside the normal
scope of the minutes, he's free to do so by making a motion to amend at the next
meeting, after someone moves to accept the minutes.  I also feel that
discussions like this email exchange are good, and should not be discouraged,
because the more issues we resolve before the next meeting, the more time we
save discussing them at the next meeting.  So, I recommend after this email
discussion is complete, if Demos still wants to change the minutes, he come
prepared at the next meeting with a concisely written motion to amend.

And now for some reality.  Not many people read the minutes until something goes
wrong.  The heart of the issue that I think Demos wants to document is that the
procedure for working out document exchange, review and comment submittal
between BRAN/HA and 802.16 hasn't yet been worked out and has been taken
"off-line."  So, I would advise that this email discussion evolve into a
discussion about the issue rather than nit-picking on rules and minutes.  Even
though we don't have "Robert's Rules of Email Order," this discussion is being
automatically recorded and reaches the desk of everyone involved.  IMHO, it's
much more effective than minutes.

From an 802.16-centric perspective, I for one am not that interested in
committee-fying comment and review of BRAN/HA's documents.  I would like to
avoid spending much time in 802.16 face-to-face meetings reviewing their
documents and agreeing on comments to submit to BRAN/HA.  I think the best we
can do is be notified of relevant BRAN/HA drafts via email (802.16 reflector)
and proceed with a less formal review process.  (Note that BRAN/HA has their own
reflector to which anyone can subscribe, that announces many things other than
relevant drafts.)  Individuals in 802.16 can recognize important issues in
BRAN/HA drafts and bring them up for discussion on this reflector.  If anyone
senses consensus on an issue, that person can formulate an appropriate motion
for the next 802.16 meeting, in the plenary and/or appropriate task group.  Such
a motion would charge a liaison to bring a change request to a BRAN meeting.

Best Regards,

Brian Petry

"Kostas, Demos" <dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com> on 05/23/2000 06:38:11 AM

Sent by:  "Kostas, Demos" <dkostas@adaptivebroadband.com>

To:   "'Scott Marin'" <smarin@spectrapoint.com>, "Kostas, Demos"
cc:   "'Roger B. Marks'" <marks@boulder.nist.gov>, stds-802-16@ieee.org,
      "'Per.J.Emanuelsson @telia.se'" <Per.J.Emanuelsson@telia.se> (Brian
Subject:  RE: stds-802-16: Request to amend joint 802-16/ETSI-BRAN-HA minut es

I find your explanation inconsistent with my 22 years experience in
standards fora participation.  An event has occurred at a meeting and a
member considers it important to ask that the event be recorded in the
meeting minutes.  The only question that should remain is whether the
proposed wording accurately describes the event.   Accuracy of the proposed
wording definitely requires to be voted upon or the chair/secretary can
informally ask those in attendance if they consider that the proposed
wording accurately describes what has happened.  If no one objects then the
wording is assumed as accurately describing the event, otherwise the
proposed statement's accuracy in describing the event is voted upon.

I am sorry for my ignorance but where is the rule of how and to record the
event that you enforcing described?  Are we following Roberts Rules or
adapting them as we go along?  Kindly explain.
I thank you.

Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
Director, Industry Standards
Adaptive Broadband Corporation

3314 Dartmouth Ave
Dallas, TX 75205  USA

tel: 214 520 8411
fax: 214 520 9802

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Marin [mailto:smarin@spectrapoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 3:38 AM
To: Kostas, Demos
Cc: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-16@ieee.org; 'Per.J.Emanuelsson@telia.se'
Subject: stds-802-16: Request to amend joint 802-16/ETSI-BRAN-HA minutes


Thanks for the suggested change to the minutes. I certainly encourage people
read and suggest corrections to the minutes.

However, after careful consideration, I'm going to recommend against
incorporating the changes you've suggested for the following reasons:

1) The instruction to secretaries that I've read suggest that minutes should
limited to motions, decisions that are voted on, and formal decisions taken
the group. Discussions are not normally recorded. To avoid potential
bias by the secretary, I've attempted to keep debates, discussions,
and other informal points out of meeting minutes.

2) The plan is to capture agreements between the organizations in writing
the draft agreement document that Roger presented. The comments by chairman
others might present interpretations of the written agreement, but I don't
consider the comments made by Per or Roger as binding unless they're in the
agreement document or they're based on a successful motion. Placing the
your suggested in the minutes would not make the point binding; although
people might interpret such notes as binding.

3) The joint meeting was basically in informative liaison meeting and not a
formal meeting of the respective groups. Even if a motion had been made and
accepted to formalize the points you raised, it's not clear the a vote on
such a
motion would have been valid because there was no basis for either chairman
accept such a motion.

Perhaps the best way forward is to make sure the points you've raised are
included in the agreement document between the organizations.


4) "Kostas, Demos" wrote:

> Scott Hi!
> There was an important result of this joint IEEE 802.16 - ETSI BRAN
> that the minutes do not reflect.  According to my notes this result (which
> should be noted in the minutes) is as follows:
> There was a discussion on the exchange of Working Documents between IEEE
> 802.16 and ETSI BRAN.  Dr. Demos Kostas suggested that the proposed
> procedure of the Ad Hoc Group for exchanging only specific Working
> upon request was an unproductive bureaucratic procedure that warranted
> streamlining.  Mr. Per Emanuelsson agreed that it was difficult for one to
> request Working Documents that one was not aware of their existence and
> added that the ETSI BRAN Hyperacid Working Documents could be made
> to IEEE 802.16 without a special request.  Dr. Roger Marks agreed about
> working out the details of posting of the ETSI BRAN Hyperacid Working
> Documents for the IEEE 802.16 off-line.
> Dr. Demosthenes J. Kostas
> Director, Industry Standards
> Adaptive Broadband Corporation
> 3314 Dartmouth Ave
> Dallas, TX 75205  USA
> tel: 214 520 8411
> fax: 214 520 9802
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:marks@boulder.nist.gov]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 6:41 AM
> To: stds-802-16@ieee.org
> Subject: stds-802-16: Published: Minutes of Joint Meeting between IEEE
> 802.16 and ETSI BRAN HIPERACCESS conducted on 5 May 2000 at 802.16
> Session #7
> Title: Minutes of Joint Meeting between IEEE 802.16 and ETSI BRAN
> HIPERACCESS conducted on 5 May 2000 at 802.16 Session #7
> Document Number: IEEE 802.16l-00/13
> URL: <http://ieee802.org/16/liaison/docs/80216l-00_13.pdf>
> Source: Scott Marin <mailto:smarin@spectrapoint.com>