Re: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
editing the size of email down.
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:35:15 -0500
> From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Hi Everyone,
> So far, I havenít seen a lot of comment on my suggestion that we interpret the rules. The email trail to date is
> given below. To summarize what I have heard so far (based on the e-mail trail):
I had given my views to the SEC reflector on other threads,
but to summarize them.
When .17 was transitioning from a SG to a WG, Howard Frazier and
Jim Carlo helped me set the rules for admission into the WG.
Anyone who attended 75% of the first plenary session became a
potential member. After that date, the 2 session rule kicked in.
So this is different than what Buzz and Bob indicated.
We had a 163 voters initially, spread over about 60 companies although
the distribution was not at all even. About 10 companies had sent
a reasonably large number of voters. There were a handful of
consultants. Only one consultant refused to name his sponsor.
The large pool of members did cause us problems to establish quorum,
but that was somewhat moot, as we had lots of work to do to establish concensus.
So my point (and I do have one) is I believe the following should
Everyone who attended 75% of the initial session gets to vote in
July. All consultants should declare who their client is. The
elections (and probably every other vote) should be by roll call.
The SEC should then analyze the results as both 1 organization 1
vote and straight and determine if any difference in result would
occur. If the vote is reverse on a 1 company 1 vote basis, then
that vote should be taken as final.
To change topics somewhat.
Finally, I would again suggest to the SEC to consider making the
rules for losing membership age as quickly as the rules to
gain membership. If someone can become a member in a 6 month
period, it is totally unreasonable to be able to hang around the
books for 12 months. I believe a window of 2 plenary sessions
and a rule that a member should be present for at >= 50% of
WG sessions would be reasonable.
The rational for the >= 50% rule is as follows. For WGs that do
not have interim sessions, it basically says that a member has
to be present every other session. For working groups that
do have interim sessions, then the typical window is 3
sessions. Hence the member has to attend 2 of the 3 sessions
to maintain their rights. In the odd case where an interim
interim session is held, the 50% rule allows the member to
skip the interims and just attend plenaries, or attend
1 interim and 1 plenary, or even 2 interims!.
As always the chairs discretion exists to grant membership
in the cases where attendance is spottier for reasons
acceptable to the chair.
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 cell:613-220-6991