Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership
I apologize for imprecise language on my part. I agree with you, a
task force meeting should not count towards losing WG membership.
Perhaps better language would be to say 4 duly constituted
That being said, if they don't count towards losing membership,
it is clear to me that they shouldn't count towards gaining it.
If the goal is to have rules where acquisition and loss of rights
are roughly symmetric, TF meetings do not really "exist".
However, I am flexible enough to accept the concept that a
WG can choose to make a TF meeting count towards gaining
> 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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:03 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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.
> 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
> > >quorums.
> > >
> > >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.
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> 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
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