Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WG membership
Tony-
The only thing I can add to your research is that for Dot3 a "duly
constituted interim" for the purposes of gathering voting rights has
always had to be a minimum of 2 days.
3.3.2 "...TF meetings that are
less than two days in duration or that take place adjunct to and
co-located with the Plenary meeting do not count towards 802.3 WG voting
rights. "
Also, although current practice is to bundle interims together,
the upcoming meeting set in New Orleans is, from the traditional 802.3
view, 2 interim meetings; one for EFM and one for DTE Power.
Geoff
At 03:47 PM 9/26/2002 +0100, Tony Jeffree wrote:
A) As far as I can tell from the current
rules, the only place where it discusses requirements for interims is in
5.1.3.5 Meetings and
Participation:
"Working Group
meetings are open to anyone who has complied with the registration
requirements (if any) for the meeting. Only members have the right to
participate in the discussions. The privilege of observers to participate
in discussions may be granted by the Working Group Chair.
Interim Working Group or Technical Advisory Group meetings are to have as
a goal: 1) Reasonable notification (>4 weeks) in addition to any
announcement given at a plenary, and 2) Few last minute shifts in
location (<< 1 per year)."
So this would place a minimum requirement for "Duly
Constituted" to be a 4-week notice period for the date of the
meeting.
A meeting doesn't have to be quorate to count towards voting rights; it
just has to be a properly announced, official, WG or TG meeting.
And currently, the ONLY thing that will make an interim meeting quorate
is getting 50%+ voter attendance. I don't think I would be happy about
changing the rules so that Interim meetings were automatically quorate if
more than X weeks notice were given.
You need a quorum only if votes taken in a WG meeting are to be binding
on the WG. In 802.1, we have always avoided the "if it moves, vote
on it, and if it doesn't move, vote on it in case it does move"
style of decision making, so the presence or absence of a quorum at an
interim meeting has never (to my knowledge - and that goes back to '84)
been an issue for us.
Regards,
Tony
At 10:03 26/09/2002 -0400, Mike Takefman wrote:
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 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