Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions


Bobo Heile's point that, at least for the .11 and .15,
the intermins are larger than 802 plenaries were 3 years
ago, and therefore are scheduled at least a year in
advance and are immovable is, I think an important point
to note.

This is what I was alluding to when I made a statement
to the fact that there was little real difference between
these "interims" and "pleanries."


> -----Original Message-----
> From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) []
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:19 PM
> To: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl); 'Bob O'Hara'; 802sec
> (
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> Carl,
> There is a significant difference between the notice for
> interim Working Group meetings and that for 802 Plenaries.
> I know when an 802 plenary will occur years in advance and
> I have it on my calendar. It is the week with the second 
> Wednesday in March, July and November. I can arrange my 
> schedule arbitrarily far in advance without risking a 
> conflict. Not only do we know 
> when it will occur, but other large bodies that draw from 
> a strongly overlapping set of people know that
> schedule and can schedule their meetings.
> Interim Working Group meeting dates are not set nearly as
> far in advance and they don't occur on the same date for 
> all Working Groups so conflicts with personal schedules 
> or other non-802 meetings are more likely.
> That is why a quorum rule difference is justified.
> I agree that Robert's Rules allow quorums lower than 50%.
> However, in my experience, standards setting bodies and
> those developing open specifications (e.g. IBTA) typically
> do use 50% or higher for their quorum requirement. I would
> be more comfortable with tightening the voter retention
> rule than with changing the quorum.
> Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) []
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:47 AM
> To: 'Bob O'Hara'; 802sec (
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob O'Hara []
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:14 PM
> > To: 802sec (
> > Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have to jump in here, too.  I have very strong feelings 
> > about the quorum
> > issue.  It is not just about making progress versus having to 
> > wait for 802
> > plenary cycles.  It is about meeting (at least in part) the 
> "open and
> > public" standards development process that helps to keep the 
> > IEEE and LMSC
> > out of anti-trust hot water.  Before we expend too many more 
> > minutes on
> > this, I would like to have a legal opinion from the IEEE 
> > legal staff as to
> > the ability of LMSC or any of its WGs or TAGs to depart from 
> > Robert's Rules
> > of Order is such a significant way.
> Bob,
> I would respectfully submit that, as Roger sort of observed,
> there is nothing "magical" about a WG meeting that is held in
> conjunction with an LMSC plenary ... and there is IMPLICILTY
> a quorum" at such a meeting of 802.11 ... even if you and I
> were the only ones to show up (though we'd have a hard time
> without a Chair, Secretary, etc., but I think you get my point.)
> The only point being made is that, AS LONG AS a WG meeting is
> scheduled well enough in advance, properly noticed, etc., the
> EXACT SAME fundamental justification that lets 802 plenaries
> "off the hook" on quorum requirements applies.
> Once again, those who attend WG meetings on the 2 month
> interval between 802 Plenaries should not be artificially
> hindered from making progress, since they ARE the ones who
> are dedicated enough to actually DO the work ...
> Also, while this may be heresy to you and some others,
> while I realize that Robert's Rules is a valuable and
> accepted guide to conducting business in an orderly
> fashion, it should not become a quasi-religious matter,
> either ... it is entirely possible (and legal, I'm quite
> sure) for the LMSC rules to depart from Robert's, if and
> when it serves the needs of the organization.
> > I am completely against reducing the quorum requirement.  Our 
> > process is all
> > about achieving consensus.  Allowing a group to make what can 
> > be significant
> > decisions with much less than half the voting membership 
> > participating is a
> > road to longer, not shorter periods for developing positions 
> > and standards, in my opinion.
> I respectfully disagree and point again to the lack of a quorum
> requirement for WG meetings held in conjunction with 802 Pleanries.
> I submit that the meetings on the 2 month intervals are no different,
> except that right now, the most active participants who are actually
> doing the work are subject to being hindered by those who aren't
> committed enough to attend and participate ...
> Another approach would be to make the requirements for keeping
> one's voting rights much more stringent ... but that would reduce
> the pool of people to comment on letter ballots, and I think that's
> in that respect a less desirable solution than to simply put properly
> scheduled and noticed WG "interims" on the same plane as WG meetings
> held in conjunction with 802 plenaries ... in fact, maybe such WG
> meetings should not be CALLED "interims" but WG Plenaries ...
> Carl