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

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

To be clear, I never suggested that membership was automatic. I agree
that people do have to request the right to become members.


"Grow, Bob" wrote:
> I didn't take the time to analyze how many people are casual observers
> exactly per Pat's definition, but I looked at something similar.  The part
> of Mike's proposal I disagree with most is an observer automatically
> becoming a member.   A quick review of 802.3 minutes indicates that on the
> average less than 30% of those qualified to become a member at an 802.3
> plenary meeting actually make the request to become a voting member.
> From this I would strongly object to both requiring a WG to automatically
> grant membership when attendance is met, and elimination of the eligibility
> rule delaying the granting of voting privilege until the next meeting.  The
> 802.3 data follows (per 802 and 802.3 rules, a potential voter could remain
> on the list for multiple meetings:
> 7/02   35 of 106
> 3/02   41 of 130
> 11/01  27 of 137
> 7/01   46 of 154
> 3/01   37 of 109
> Total 186 of 636 requested to become voting members.
> --Bob Grow
> -----Original Message-----
> From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 3:20 PM
> To: Tony Jeffree; Mike Takefman
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for
> WGme mbership
> Tony,
> You are correct about my intent.
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:48 PM
> To: Mike Takefman
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for
> WGme mbership
> Mike -
> There are 2 types of interims in current practice; 1) Those that are
> intended to be full WG meetings, which, if properly announced and quorate,
> can conduct any aspect of WG business; and 2) Those that are convened as
> Task Group or Task Force meetings, intended to advance the work on one or
> more projects within the work of the WG, but that are not empowered
> (whether quorate or not) to conduct other WG business.
> Historically, the majority of 802.1 & 802.3 Interim meetings have been of
> type 2); in these meetings, anyone that can fog a mirror (to quote Howard)
> can vote, but any such votes are not binding on the Working Group, and
> would therefore require to be ratified at a subsequent Plenary. In other
> WGs, the majority of Interims are of type 1).
> I believe it was Pat's intention (please correct me if I'm wrong, Pat) that
> the rule be based on 2 out of 4  Working Group meetings (i.e., Plenary
> meetings and Type 1 interim meetings), and that the current substitution
> rule would still apply for Type 2 interim meetings. This would mean that,
> if 802.1 or 802.3 continue their current practice, there would be exactly
> zero change in the effective membership rules for those groups. They could,
> of course, choose to vary their current practice, if they felt so moved,
> and constitute their interims as full WG meetings.
> So, I think with the clarification that the 4 meeting window is based on
> duly constituted (plenary or interim) Working Group meetings, and that the
> substitution rule that currently states "One duly constituted interim
> Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two
> Plenary meetings" would change to "One duly constituted interim task group
> meeting may be substituted for one of the two Working Group meetings", I
> think the algorithm below looks just fine.
> I would note that your algorithm does imply an additional change from
> current rules - currently, once you satisfy the 2 out of 4 rule, you don't
> get to vote until the start of the next Plenary that you attend. What this
> further change loses in protection against giving voting rights to the more
> casual attendee, I think it gains in making the establishment & retention
> rules more symmetrical.
> Regards,
> Tony
> At 15:31 25/09/2002 -0400, Mike Takefman wrote:
> >My $0.02
> >
> >In talking with some members of my group, there was a feeling that
> >a 4 month meeting cycle for losing membership (whether it is
> >2 of 2 or 2 of 3) is a little too fast.
> >
> >Our current rules allow membership as fast as 4 months if
> >people hit the right phase and 8 months if they are out of
> >phase.
> >
> >I agree with Tony on having equivalent rules for gain or
> >loss. And the suggestion that has made the most sense to
> >me up to this point is a window of 4 meetings, be they
> >plenary or *properly* announced interims. This makes the
> >window a consistent 6 months for those groups that
> >meet every two months. If an interim is not properly
> >announced, then it cannot be used for loss, but I believe
> >it can be used for gaining rights. This rewards those
> >people who can make it to a meeting, but does not
> >penalize people who could not make it due to lack of
> >warning.
> >
> >The algorithm is as follows. After a meeting has adjourned,
> >the chair looks backwards at attendance for a window of
> >4 meetings. With the closing meeting being the start
> >of the window.
> >
> >Gaining rights: If a person has attended 2 meetings with
> >75% attendance at each, they are elligible for gaining
> >their voting rights if they so inform the chair. Their
> >voting rights start after the meeting hence they are
> >elligible for any ballots that occur between the meeting
> >that just ended and the next one.
> >
> >Losing rights: If a person has not attended 2 meetings with
> >75% attendance at each, they lose their membership and their
> >voting rights end immediately after the meeting. As before
> >the discretion of the chair can be used to grant membership.
> >
> >If you do the math, someone can maintain their rights by
> >coming to every second meeting, or by attending 2 meetings
> >then having a 2 meeting gap and attending on the 5th meeting.
> >This does allow someone to be on leave for up to 6 months
> >and return without losing their rights (of course they then have
> >to go to the two meetings in a row)
> >
> >Comments ?
> >
> >mike
> >
> >--
> >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

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