Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership
given your statement and tony's reply about the > 4 weeks in the current
rules. I support a notification period of no less than 45 days.
"Robert D. Love" wrote:
> Based on the fact that we now have a considerable history of interim meeting
> dates and venues not being known until the end of the previous plenary, I
> would recommend that 45 days be the minimum notification required for
> interim meetings to count within the required 4. I believe that 4 months is
> too much lead time to require, and it is an unnecessarily large lead time
> for smaller working groups (< 150 participants at a meeting).
> Best regards,
> Robert D. Love
> President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: email@example.com Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Takefman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme
> > Tony, Pat,
> > 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.
> > mike
> > 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
> > > >membership. There are very large numbers of casual attendees who attend
> > > >two 802.3 meetings. Requiring attendence of three meetings to gain
> > > >rights filters out casual attendees. Granting voting rights for those
> > > >attend just two meetings could make it difficult to close ballots or
> > > >quorums.
> > > >
> > > >David Law could provide actual numbers, but I would say it isn't
> > > >for 802.3 to have 30 to 50 people per plenary cycle who have attended
> > > >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.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tony
> > --
> > Michael Takefman firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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
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