RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
I agree with Roger. We should work at defining "quorum". From our
5.1.4 Operation of the Working Group
The operation of the Working Group has to be balanced between democratic
procedures that reflect the desires of the Working Group members and the
Working Group Chair's responsibility to produce a standard, recommended
practice, or guideline, in a reasonable amount of time. Roberts Rules of
Order shall be used in combination with these operating rules to achieve
In the absence of any other definition of "quorum", Robert's Rules define it
to be one half of the membership. I am hearing that some chairs are
comfortable with decisions being made by their working groups, when less
than half of the membership is present. I believe I recall seeing one
posting suggesting 1/3 of the membership.
I don't believe that the question we should be asking ourselves is how small
a group are WE comfortable having present to make decisions, but how small a
group is the WG membership comfortable having present to make decisions. I
believe the answers to those two questions are very different.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
I think we should focus on quorum, which is a tough enough problem to
solve without trying to redefine membership requirements at the same
I strongly oppose redefining an "interim session" as a "Plenary
session". The rules are loaded with references to "Plenary sessions".
This clearly means "LMSC Plenary sessions".