RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme mbership
I would object to a <45 day requirement. Though dot 3 usually has Interim
Task Force meeting information available at the closing 802.3 plenary, there
are times when we call a meeting and compute attendance credit with less
notice. In some cases (e.g., when working on SB recirculations), we will
announce the possibility of holding a meeting as a courtesy and so that
people will hold the date open, but only hold the meeting if necessary
(e.g., the ballot produces comments). For this we are only limited by our
802.3 rules requirement that 30 day notice be provided (exceeding the 802
rule by two days). If properly announced and of at least two days duration
we treat the meeting as duly constituted per 802 rules.
As Pat and Geoff have pointed out, we have multiple interim meetings. Geoff
pointed out that our New Orleans meeting is actually two task force interims
(802.3af and 802.3ah), New Orleans is also an example of a point Pat made
because 802.3af also met in Chelmsford in August. Each of these meetings is
evaluated for attendance credit.
I believe it is appropriate to recognize attendance when a Task Force
commits to a more intensive meeting schedule to complete the standard a few
months earlier than would happen with a single interim. The 45 day
requirement would either have the effect of delaying completion of 802.3
standards or unnecessarily remove one small incentive for people to attend
and support an aggressive schedule.
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:52 AM
To: Robert D. Love
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules forWGme
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
> 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
> 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
> > > >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
> > > 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