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

RE: [802SEC] Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:26:18 -0700




Pat,

It is intriguing to uncover all the variations on implementation of the same
set of rules.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 7:05 PM
To: M.Klerer@flarion.com; bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:26:18 -0700

Counting the first plenary as the "first" meeting is fairly consistant with
what was done in earlier Working Group start ups. When the first meeting was
an interim, we counted the first plenary meeting as the real "first" meeting
- people who didn't attend the interim but attended the first plenary were
granted voting rights. In our case we actually counted both as the first
meeting - a person could gain voting rights by attending either the interim
before the first plenary or the first plenary. In effect the result was
virtually the same as basing initial membership on only plenary attendance
since the number of people that attended the first interim but not the first
plenary was about zero.

Hindsight is 20:20. Mark's interpretation of the rules to count the plenary
as the first meeting was reasonable with regard to the P&P and consistant
with established practices. (Remember that full Working Group interim
meetings were not common during the early years when the P&P were written.)

However, I don't think using lack of attendance at the interim to
disenfranchise someone would be reasonable. The rules say "Membership is
retained by participating in at least two of the last four Plenary session
meetings." (5.1.3.2) Lack of attendance of an interim Working Group meetings
is not grounds lose voting rights. (Changing that rule has been discussed,
but this is the current rule.)

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:36 AM
To: 'Bob O'Hara'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:26:18 -0700


Bob,

First let me address the experience with LMSC P&P. I have taken the time
from day one of my participation in 802 (November 2001 plenary) to read and
understand the P&P of the IEEE-SA and the LMSC. The interpretation I have
used has been used by at least two other chairs in establishing their
committee's voting rights. The fact that the P&P and are highly ambiguous
and unclear and that no uniform precedents exist is an issue for the LMSC to
address and clear up. I laud Mat Sherman for stepping up to that task. 
As Tony pointed out the P&P actually do require elections to be held at a
plenary.

With respect to your question about an attendance register on a meeting by
meeting basis for the January meeting that is not available (I will explain
that in a moment). What my previous note addressed was very specifically
your statement of being able to identify "those members that can be shown
not to have attended the requisite number of meetings at previous sessions
of the WORKING GROUP." To do that all that is needed is to show that they
were not there at all. Now for the reason there is no meeting-by-meeting
roster for January. I had received e-mails (from 802.16 members)(see
attached messages) requesting clarification that the initial meeting for
initial voting rights would be the March plenary since 802.16 had a meeting
in another location at that time and that some of these members would like
to be able to get voting rights at the 802.20 meeting. My response was to
allow that and I also drew attention to the fact that 75% attendance would
be required for participation credit. Therefore, I specifically mentioned in
January that we would not keep per-meeting rosters for that session but just
a cumulative roster. Note that Roger Marks and Paul Nikolich are copied on
these e-mails, I also sought the advice of some of the Exec members. I have
made every possible effort to keep the process wide open and as inclusive as
possible. In all my interpretations I have tried my best to be consistent
with the P&P. Participation has been encouraged by all as individuals and
the PAR is open to all and any proposals that meet the PAR scope.

Bob, I would be glad to discuss things with you over the phone if you wish.
Let me know when you want me to call as I am working from home today.

Best regards

Mark Klerer


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara [mailto:bob@airespace.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 12:27 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:26:18 -0700


Tony, 

It also seems clear that if Mark wants to adopt that interpretation, he
also failed to hold WG elections.  That could be argued to be evidence
that he does not have sufficient experience with LMSC P&P to hold the
chair position, as would the publishing of the "procedures" that would
be used at the March session (second session) of 802.20 for establishing
initial membership, in contravention of the LMSC P&P.  

So, it seems that we are being asked to consider both of those meetings
to be the "first" meeting, depending on when we look and for what
purpose.

I believe that we need a decision from the LMSC chair, indicating when
the first session of 802.20 was held, when initial membership was
established, and who attained membership at the initial session.

For Mark, do you have an attendance roster that shows exactly which
meetings of the January session each person attended?

 -Bob
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:49 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Mark Klerer
Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation



Mark -

Seems clear to me that, if the January meeting was indeed the first duly

constituted meeting of the 802.20 WG, then attendance at that meeting 
should be taken into account under the "retention" rule. However, surely

the "establishment" rule (first line of 5.1.3.1), by the same argument, 
should have been applied in January, and not in March.

Regards,
Tony.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:25 PM
>To: 'Bob O'Hara '; Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); 'paul.nikolich@att.net'
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>Bob, Mat and Paul
>
>Bob you do raise an interesting prospect by stating that you are
>"willing to
>disenfranchise those members that can be shown not to have attended the
>requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING
GROUP."
>You
>state that this cannot be done since there were no previous sesions.
>Well,
>actually that is not correct. The WORKING GROUP had a "duly constituted
>interim Working Group session" January 13-16, 2003. So it now actually
>becomes a trivial exercise to identify those who have not "attended the
>requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING
GROUP."
>All
>one needs to do is look at the attendance roster of the January meeting
>on
>the website and compare that to the March session. There were some 60+
>attendees in January including some who attended for the first time,
>i.e.
>were not participants in the SG.
>
>I would also point that the the Operating Rules do not require the
first
>session (though it says meeting) to be at a plenary. The Op Rules also
>allow
>substitution of a duly constituted interim meeting for the meetings of
a
>pleanry session. So this approach would be entirley within the realm of
>interpretation of the Op rules.
>
>So I for one am willing to go with such an interpretation.
>
>Mark Klerer
>
>
>Mat: I would appreciate you forwarding this to the SEC mailing list.
>Thanks
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob O'Hara
>To: mjsherman@research.att.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Sent: 4/3/03 11:03 AM
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>My opinion is that the interpretation of the rules published by the
>chair of the SG appointed by Paul and affirmed by the SEC, one who
>presumably has sufficient experience in the workings of the LMSC and
the
>P&P to hold the position, is valid and has granted membership to those
>that were present for 75% of the meetings of the March session.  I
don't
>agree with the chair's interpretation and consider it unduly
>restrictive, given the actual language of the rule.  But, that was what
>was published to the study group and copies provided to the SEC chair
>and other members of the SEC.
>
>However, I am willing to disenfranchise those members that can be shown
>not to have attended the requisite number of meetings at previous
>sessions of the WORKING GROUP.  Given that such evidence cannot be
>produced, because there were no previous meetings of the working group,
>any interpretation of the P&P membership retention rule that would
>disenfranchise those members is clearly absurd.  Just as some might say
>that the members attended no previous sessions of the WG.  I can say
>that those same members attended ALL previous sessions of the WG.
>
>Those that were present when the existing rules were crafted have
>clearly indicated that the rules are intended to grant immediate
>membership, so that the WG can begin conducting official business at
its
>first meeting (not session).  Any interpretation of the retention rule
>that immediately removes that membership is also clearly absurd, since
>the WG can no longer continue to conduct business, not even at the
>second meeting of the first session.
>
>So, we have gotten ourselves into this fine mess and Mat has asked us
to
>use a procedure form Robert's Rules to interpret the P&P to get
>ourselves out of it.  Robert's says that the interpretation should be
in
>accordance with the intention at the time the rule was written.  I have
>seen nothing to contrary to the statements made that membership was
>immediate and necessary to begin conducting business.
>
>In my opinion, it is not the initial membership rule that is ambiguous,
>but the retention rule, which does not account for the startup
>conditions of the working group.
>
>  -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:35 PM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
>So far, I haven't 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):
>
>
>
>1)     At least some of us believe that membership based on SG
>attendance was originally discussed by 802 and intentionally avoided in
>the current rules
>
>2)     Al least some of us believe that the intent of the current rules
>was indeed to give anyone present at the initial meeting voting rights
>under the assumption they would continue to attend
>
>3)     At least some of us believe that "meeting" really meant
>"meeting", not "session" in the current new WG membership rules
>
>4)     At least some of up believe the chair of a new WG should have
the
>discretion to interpret "meeting" as "session" since participation is
>only defined per session (currently)
>
>
>
>In addition I have seen some side traffic concerning other process
>issues relevant to the upcoming 802.20 elections.  However, the focus
of
>my interpretation request is really on whether or not the membership in
>802.20 is valid, not on the election process itself.  I encourage
others
>to start dealing with that topic if they feel it is an issue.  Based on
>the comments to date, I would have to say that the rule in error is the
>one that determines membership retention.  Based on that my recommended
>interpretation would be to interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention"
>to read:
>
>
>
>             "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
of
>the last four Plenary session meetings.  One duly constituted interim
>Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
>two Plenary meetings. (In the case of a new working group with less
than
>4 meetings, it is assumed that the 4 plenary sessions prior to the
>formation of the group were attended by the new WG members when
>determining if membership is retained.)"
>
>
>
>I want to clearly establish before the interim what the membership
>status of 802.20 members will be for that meeting.  This interpretation
>would enforce that membership in that WG is maintained until it can
>unambiguously be demonstrated that the retention requirements were not
>met.  If anyone objects to this interpretation please state so, and why
>they believe so.  I want to have a full 30 day ballot on an
>interpretation and I want to make sure I get it right before I put it
>forward.  That is why I am trying to get inputs now.  Please tell me
>what you think.
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:42 PM
>To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Bob,  I agree completely.  The practice in the past has been to grant
>voting rights based only on attendance at the first official meeting of
>the first plenary session.  But since our rules only refer to
>"participation" in the first session, I am willing to allow the WG
chair
>to define exactly what is meant by participation.  In this case however
>where you only have a temporary chair who may have a stake in the
>outcome of the voting this may very well become the minefield to which
>you refer.  Already there has been quite a bit of dickering over what
>constitutes valid participation.  That's why I think we need a re-run
>with the rules clearly spelled out in advance, so that everyone has a
>fair chance to participate.  Let's hope Geoff can bring his usual
>measure of sanity to the process.   :-)
>
>
>
>Thanx,  Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:05 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Buzz may be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a slightly
>different long term perspective as having been in the 802 trenches the
>longest of any SEC member.  Since 1981 I have participated in (and I
>think had voting rights on):  802.2 (as an 802 voter), 802.3, 802.4
>(when it was part of the Token DLMAC), 802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11.
>I have had membership in two working groups at the same time.  I have
>been involved in the organization of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802
>got dots, and either one or both of 802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member
>at an initial meeting.  My recollection is that received member rights
>at an organizational meeting, independent of session attendance during
>the plenary week.  While long term historical perspective is
>enlightening, it may also be a mine field.
>
>
>
>--Bob Grow
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:53 PM
>To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>Buzz,
>
>
>
>Much appreciated, and very enlightening!
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
>To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Colleagues,    Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to
>consider.
>
>
>
>As our now longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to the
>intention of the current rules based on prior discussions going back to
>when the rules were created.  The intention behind section 5.1.3.1 was
>that all attendees who participated in the first official plenary
>meeting would be automatically granted full voting rights (membership)
>on a grandfathered basis (as though they had attended the two prior
>plenaries) so that there would be a pool of eligible members (voters)
to
>allow for quorum establishment and transaction of committee business.
>Otherwise a new working group would be unable to transact any business
>for two meetings, something that was deemed unacceptable.  There was
>consideration given to having a participation requirement based on the
>preliminary activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection
is
>that study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable
>entities, which were subject to changes and might not be fully attended
>by the major players until such time as a PAR was officially approved.
>So the intention was that the fairest basis was to allow everyone who
>was willing to commit to active participation at the first official
>meeting should be treated as equal participants and granted full
>membership.
>
>
>
>Every new Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this same
>basic rule, so it has worked fairly well.  However this is the very
>first instance that I'm aware of, in which all of the officers elected
>had not been participants of the prior Study group which created the
>PAR.  With the exception of Peter Tarrant, who led the Hi-Speed LAN
>Study Group that ultimately morphed into 100BASE-T and 802.12, the
>person who was chair of the Study Group has always been elected to
Chair
>the Working Group or TAG.  There was some serious controversy about
that
>particular dynamic as well.
>
>
>
>I personally believe that the correct course for us will be to maintain
>the voters list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll call election at
>the July plenary.  Anyone who qualified as a voter in Dallas should be
>entitled to vote in SF whether they attend the interim or not.  Once
the
>outcome is officially recorded, the SEC can address any remaining
issues
>of block voting based on the data, rather than on a lot of hearsay and
>opinion.  At least there is some opportunity in the meantime to find
>some compromise solutions which may allow the problem to solve itself.
>Time heals all wounds.    :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thanx,  Buzz
>Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
>Boeing - SSG
>PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
>Seattle, WA  98124-2207
>(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
>everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Gentle-folks:
>
>
>
>I wish to call to your attention to a particular section of Robert's
>Rules.  That section is the following from Article IX of Robert's Rules
>(10th edition):
>
>
>
>             "If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if
>possible, in harmony with other bylaws.  The interpretations should be
>in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw
>was adopted, as far as this can be determined.  Again, intent plays no
>role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity
>exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question.
>The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as
>practicable."
>
>
>
>I am of the opinion that our "bylaws" (the LMSC P&P) are in fact
>"ambiguous or doubtful" regarding the process of obtaining membership
at
>the start up of a working group.  In particular we have from section
>5.1.3.1 titled "Establishment":
>
>
>
>             "All persons participating in the initial meeting of the
>Working Group become members of the Working Group."
>
>
>
>On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention":
>
>
>
>             "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
of
>the last four Plenary session meetings.  One duly constituted interim
>Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
>two Plenary meetings."
>
>
>
>As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis)
>in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with
>one another.  Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not
>we intended "meeting" or "session" in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet
>another interpretation) these two rules seem to conflict with one
>another.  Even taking the liberal view that meeting means session,
after
>the first session the general rules would kick in and all "members"
>would seem to lose their membership in the WG.
>
>
>
>All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should "fix"
>this problem by the end of the July meeting.  My concern is for the
>beginning of the July meeting.  Given what happened in March to 802.20,
>I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these "bylaws" so that
>we don't have a repeat of the last meeting.  As indicated by Robert's
>Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority vote.  I
believe
>a motion could be put forward and then approved electronically prior to
>the July meeting.  But before I do that, I wanted to open this issue
for
>debate prior to making any motions so that I can make sure I make the
>right motion (or perhaps chose not to make a motion at all).
>
>
>
>Any comments on this topic?
>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>Mat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Matthew Sherman
>Vice Chair, IEEE 802
>Technology Consultant
>Communications Technology Research
>AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>Room B255, Building 103
>180 Park Avenue
>P.O. Box 971
>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
>

Regards,
Tony