RE: [802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
Adoption of WG rules is also probably best deferred.
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:33 PM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup
I think this is all pretty good. My first impression (undiminished my
nit-picking detailed analysis) is that this is good enough that we
go for it and see if it works.
We need to, pretty carefully, come up with a list of things that the WG
can't do until it "becomes a consensus group".
All external (to 802) communications would have to be vetted by
No new PARs or revision PARs
No Working Group Ballots
Co-locate all interims with another WG (for mentoring support).
We need to think about how some other stuff needs to be handled.
For example, can a pre-consensus group vote on objectives?
If they do, do they need to be re-voted at membership formation time?
At 09:32 AM 7/28/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Thanks for your feedback.
>>I think that the idea may have some potential; however, given that
>>you propose introduces a rather definite distinction between "voting"
>>"membership", I suspect that the impact in terms of changes to the
>>is rather greater than you state.
>There may be some other complications, but I don't think they would be
>hard to address. The full rights of membership do go beyond voting (see
>188.8.131.52), so we could try to enlarge the rights of attendees in the
>pre-membership period, but I think that the other rights could easily
>managed without specific P&P on the topic.
>I wouldn't want to see a pre-membership WG run a letter ballot. We
>add some language to prevent the initial Chair from appointing members
>Chair's Discretion and then sending them a letter ballot.
>By the way, we do have a lot of experience with the "no-members,
>can vote" policy, since Study Groups work that way. Note also that we
>specifically forbid SGs from running letter ballots.
>>For example, it would be necessary to make it clear what kinds of
>>can and can not be voted on before there are any members, to deal with
>>the case where the voters at the initial meeting vote to hold
>I think that my proposed language ("Initial appointments shall be valid
>until the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
>memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for
>session.") is clear enough. It could be made more forceful, I guess.
>>Also, your proposal doesn't grant any credit for study group
>True, and I don't think it should. Membership couldn't be granted
>the third session of the WG (or the fourth, if there are interims
>plenaries). I expect the first few sessions to be pretty important and
>take the WG a long way from its SG roots. Someone who wants to be a
>should participate in two of them. Chair's Discretion can handle any
>>Roger B. Marks writes:
>>> Dear ExCom,
>>> On Friday, I had some stimulating discussions with Geoff, Jerry,
>>> Mark on what would be a good set of membership rules for startup
>>> Some things said during the rules debate also played a role in my
>>> thinking. After reviewing the current rules again, I now have a
>>> definite idea of a set of changes that would satisfy my concerns
>>> would, I believe, also satisfy the other concerns I've heard. This
>>> proposal is simple, and it is philosophically compatible with our
>>> existing membership rules.
>>> Here is my proposal:
>>> (a) In 184.108.40.206, delete the first sentence and the following word
>>> ("All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working
>>> Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,").
>>> (b) At the end of that first paragraph of 220.127.116.11, add the
>> > "In a new WG or TAG, all registered attendees may vote until such
>> > time as the first WG or TAG memberships are established."
>>> (c) In 5.1.2, change "Initial appointments, and temporary
>>> appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals for
>>> cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid
>>> the end of the next Plenary session" to:
>>> "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies
>>> due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair
>>> of the LMSC. Temporary appointments shall be valid until the end of
>> > the next Plenary session. Initial appointments shall be valid
>> > the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
>> > memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled
>> > that session."
>> > ============================================================
>>> Normally, the sequence would be:
>>> (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
>>> (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>> (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
>> > (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>> (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
>>> session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
>>> the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
>>> confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
>>> Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting
>>> shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three
>>> (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
>>> sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be
>>> the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
>>> members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
>>> instead of two under the current rules.
>>> I submit that this system could take a lot of the politics out of
>>> WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
>>> I'd appreciate your thoughts.