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

Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership

Commenting on

"You still don't seem to accept that there should be a difference between
interim task force meetings and an interim working group meeting. There are
multiple reasons why interim task force meeting attendance should not be
required to maintain voting:"

Certainly we could give credit for but not require attendance at an interim
task force meeting.  I would strongly support leaving that level of detail
up to the Working Group Chair.

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:          Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>; <>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme

> Mike,
> I think duly constitued was left to the working group chair or working
group rules to define since the option of whether to count interims at all
was left up to the chair.
> For 802.3 the rule has been that interim task force meetings of more than
two days and announced at least 4 weeks in advance can count toward
attaining voting rights. A one day meeting was felt to be too short.
> You still don't seem to accept that there should be a difference between
interim task force meetings and an interim working group meeting. There are
multiple reasons why interim task force meeting attendence should not be
required to maintain voting:
>   Some task force meetings are very narrowly focused. They don't give the
attendee the view into other work of the Working Group that is necessary to
being a knowledgeable voter.
>   Because of the narrow focus, it isn't reasonable to expect voters to
attend the task force meetings of a task force outside their focus.
>   In groups that hold interim task force meetings, the task forces may
meet separately because of the needs of their current work schedule or
because of location preferences of the participants. There are also cases
where a task force has met twice or more between two plenaries (usually
because there was a ballot and recirculation or multiple recirculations that
required resolution). Therefore, there can be multiple task force meetings
between two plenaries. This would make a requirement to attend two meetings
out of the last four interims or plenaries burdensome. (Currently, 802.3 is
usually having between 1 and 3 interims between plenaries because multiple
task forces have been scheduling their interims together. In the past, there
were times when there more and that could happen again at some point.)
>   Logistically, the requirement could increase the attendence of task
force meetings where there are a relatively small group of interested
participants making hosting the task force meeting more of a burden and
making it more difficult to find hosts.
> If the 4 meeting window includes task force meetings, the new rule would
virtually force the Working Groups that currently hold interim task force
meetings into the work model of the Working Groups that hold interim working
group meetings. We have groups with a long and successful history that use
the former model and they shouldn't be expected to change.
> Regards,
> Pat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman []
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:03 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme
> mbership
> 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    
> 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