Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership
one question, one statement and a proposal modification.
Q) I searched the rules for the snippet "duly constituted". It is
undefined in the document. Could I please have a definition?
My intent in proposing a 4 meeting window where the interim
meetings were well advertised is an attempt to make sure that
quorum does not need to be met in order for an interim meeting
to count IFF it is advertised well in advance (say 16 weeks).
While we often make the point that plenary dates are known
years in advance, I think that operationally, people do not
really plan their IEEE travel any more than 4 months in advance.
A requirement for 16 weeks normally means that at any given
interim, the next interim date must be know.
I am willing to have voting rights start at the begining of
the third meeting given the comments by Pat and Tony.
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> At 16:19 25/09/2002 -0600, THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) wrote:
> >I disagree with you about the impact of the change to the rule on gaining
> >membership. There are very large numbers of casual attendees who attend
> >two 802.3 meetings. Requiring attendence of three meetings to gain voting
> >rights filters out casual attendees. Granting voting rights for those who
> >attend just two meetings could make it difficult to close ballots or get
> >David Law could provide actual numbers, but I would say it isn't unusual
> >for 802.3 to have 30 to 50 people per plenary cycle who have attended two
> >meetings but don't attend the third.
> Pat -
> Its a fair point - in that case, retaining the 3 meeting requirement for
> gaining a vote is a good idea.
Michael Takefman email@example.com
Manager of Engineering, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 fax: 613-254-4867