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


802.3 task force interims have been between 200 and 300 people (which at the time was larger than plenaries 3 years earlier) and which is not that much smaller than the current .11 and .15 interims. 

The differences between plenaries and large working group interims:

802 plenaries are scheduled much more than a year in advance and one doesn't even have to look at a schedule to know when they are. One just has to know a rule.

802 plenaries have the other working groups present. This difference is particularly important with respect to comments of those who want to count interim working group meetings the same as plenaries for voting rights. I believe that it is important that attendence at 802 plenaries be required for establishing voting rights so that voters do see the whole of 802 and not just their corner.

There is one 802 plenary every 4 months so other meetings rarely conflict with them. There will be multiple 802 interim working group meetings every 4 months so conflicts are more difficult to avoid.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) []
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:57 AM
To: 'THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)'; Stevenson, Carl R (Carl); 'Bob
O'Hara'; 802sec (
Subject: 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