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

Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Gentle people,

I believe that in some of the recent emails on the rules for membership
in a new WG/TWG that the authors are continuing the sloppy/incorrect use
of the words "meeting" and "session".

Section 8, Chapter IV of 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order
provides the following definitions.

"A meeting of an assembly is a single official gathering of its members
in one room or area to transact business for a length of time during
which there is no cessation of proceedings and the members do not
separate, unless for a short recess, as defined below. (For modification
of the "one-room-or-area" requirement when the bylaws authorize meeting
by videoconference or teleconference, see pages 482-83.)  Depending on
the business to be transacted, a meeting may last from a few minutes to
several hours."

"A session of an assembly, unless otherwise defined by the bylaws or
governing rules of the particular organization or body, is a meeting or
a series of connected meetings devoted to a single order of business,
program, agenda, or announced purpose, in which - when there is more
than one meeting - each succeeding meeting is scheduled with a view to
continuing business at the point where it was left off at the previous meeting."

In short, 802 WGs/TAGs have morning, afternoon and evening meetings and
Interim and Plenary sessions.  The sessions are comprised of multiple
morning, afternoon and evening meetings.

PLEASE use these definitions of meetings and sessions.  Otherwise I, and
I suspect others, have no idea what you mean when you use these words.



Ken Alonge wrote:

Hi All-
I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little more.  In
Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes
to a Working Group evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the
method by which WGs have
come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop into
existence.  In fact, 802.10 did not
evolve from a SG -- it "popped" into existence from work that began
outside 802.  At the very first meeting of
.10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and the Chair (who
had not previously participated in
802) had Exec voting rights at the next Plenary.  Is it the expectation
that this will NEVER happen again in
Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec
knows (except me, since I haven't
been around in a while) that ALL new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that
have been spun off from existing
WGs (and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting
rights in the manner specified in the
P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep the current practice of
awarding membership to all who attend the
first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.)  If this is
really the case, then I think there may
be some shortsightedness on the part of the Exec, as to where new 802
projects might come from.