Re: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
So how about some simple facts.
What was the vote (approve/disapprove/abstain) in each WG on the
motion(s) to approve the two position statements?
What was the numbers of voting members on the roster of voting members
for each WG at the time of the above vote(s)? (hint - the answer is
NOT the number of voting members present at the meeting at which the
motions were passed).
"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> As I said to the SEC reflector last week, 802.16 approved the letters
> in an authorized Working Group meeting on 20 May.
> Though we were short (by one person) of a formal quorum at our
> Session #19 last week, we were authorized to act by a Working Group
> Letter Ballot that approved the following motion:
> "To authorize the IEEE 802.16 Working Group to carry out Working
> Group business at Session #19, with or without a formal quorum, and
> in particular to authorize the Working Group Closing Plenary, on 24
> May 2002, to act, with a 75% majority of those members present, to
> adopt drafts and initiate Working Group Letter Ballots on those
> drafts under PARs 802.16a and 802.16c."
> At 8:56 AM -0700 02/05/28, Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >While I understand the procedure does not require WG approval, your
> >statement supporting approval of the motion by the SEC does, however, state
> >that .11, .15, and .16 all "approved" the documents. I am simply asking for
> >clarification from you, and the working group chairs, that the "approvals"
> >by the WGs are entirely within the LMSC and WG operating rules. Having been
> >a member of 802.11 for many years, I know very well how loosely that WG
> >adheres to its own rules and the vilification to which any member asking
> >that the rules be observed is subjected.
> >So, I ask that each of the wireless WG chairs state here that their WGs
> >either approved the referenced documents at an 802 plenary meeting or that
> >their WGs had either a quorum present as demonstrated by their attendance
> >records or have conducted the necessary procedures to gain the approval of
> >the entire WG.
> > -Bob
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Carl R. Stevenson [mailto:email@example.com]
> >Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:33 PM
> >To: Bob O'Hara; firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Subject: Regarding Bob's Question ... RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION]
> >to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
> >Importance: High
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:email@example.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:44 PM
> >> To: 802sec (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> >> Cc: 'Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)'
> >> Subject: RE: [802SEC] [TIME-SENSITIVE MOTION] to APPROVE FCC FILINGS
> >> Carl,
> >> You state in the motion that the list of working groups have
> >> approved the documents. Were these approvals at the March
> >> plenary meetings of the working groups? If this approval was
> >> obtained at an interim meeting without a quorum present, have
> >> the working groups conducted the required letter ballots of the
> >> entire working group membership(s) to truly "approve" the
> >> documents?
> >> -Bob
> >I was in Sydney. Both .11 and .15 were conducting
> >business to the end of their closing plenaries and
> >certainly appeared to *me* to have quorums (though in
> >the interest of strict accuracy, I must admit that
> >*I* did not, at the time of my motions, call for a
> >count ...)
> >I have spoken to Bob Heile and he assured me that
> >.15 had a quorum.
> >While I have been unable thusfar to reach Stuart or
> >Roger regarding your inquiry, I have inquired of .11
> >and .16 for specific clarification on your question.
> >HOWEVER, in the meantime, while we await responses
> >from .11 and .16, if you look at Procedure 4 of the
> >LMSC rules, specifically the section entitled
> >"IEEE 802 position statements," you will see that there
> >is actually NO requirement for ANY sort of WG approval
> >of the documents in order for the SEC to approve them
> >as IEEE 802 positions. The ONLY specified requirement
> >for release (filing with the FCC in this case) is a 2/3
> >approval of the SEC.
> >Thus, with all due respect to your concern for the details
> >of the LSMC rules, the lack of a specific requirement
> >for WG approval in the LMSC rules would render your inquiry
> >regarding WG quorums at the most recent interims moot as far
> >as my pending motion goes.
> >If you wish, please consider the "RECOGNIZING" portion of my
> >motion as being merely informative (as a courtesy to the SEC),
> >rather than conveying information REQUIRED by the LMSC rules.
> >Again, due to the importance of the issues surrounding
> >the proposed FCC filings, I urge the members of the SEC
> >to promptly vote to approve the motion.
> >Carl R. Stevenson