Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
Roger,
The rules of how a quorum is counted are in Robert's rules. In the absence of any alteration in our rules, that is what would apply so there isn't an ambiguity. Without checking that reference, I believe the quorum count is made on the number of people in the room at the time of a quorum call is made. If you believe despite this there is still ambiguity in a quorum, then your change wouldn't resolve the ambiguity because it still requires a quorum for some meetings.
A Working Group (or any other body) authorizing a subgroup to act on a particular subject is entirely valid and is an established practice both generally and within our process. For instance, most 802 Working Groups delegate some work to task forces and the Standards Board operating manual mentions ballot resolution and interpretations subgroups. It is entirely different in scope from allowing a Working Group meeting to act on any business at interims without a quorum.
Furthermore, I don't think 6 months advance notice is nearly enough to meet what was intended by "time and place is established well in advance". I know roughly when the IEEE 802 plenaries will occur years in advance. Generally I know the established time and place well over a year in advance. I also think it is important that certain things are limited to 3 times a year. We have members who are interested in subjects that are not currently under active work. It is helpful to their ability to monitor their interests to know that they can do that by attending the three plenaries a year.
I also think that it is important for plenaries to have a different status than interims. Plenaries are where are members are exposed to the work across 802 rather than only their topics. There are groups that have shown the ability to progress work rapidly with interim task force meetings and plenary working group meetings.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
Sent: Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 2:43 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
Pat,
There is both ambiguity and uncertainty around WG interim sessions
because of the quorum requirement. One problem is that there is no
clear definition of quorum. Do we count the number of members
registered or attending some part of the session? Or do we count the
number of people in a room at a given time? Also, what about the
tradition in some WGs of authorizing a future interim session to act,
with or without a quorum? The status of this tradition is ambiguous.
The uncertainty comes from the fact that a WG cannot effectively plan
its work and meet its deadlines if it doesn't know whether it will be
able to make decisions at a meeting.
Yes, I am definitely proposing a change. But we are looking at a
piece of the P&P that justifies itself in detail: "No quorum is
required at meetings held in conjunction with the Plenary session
since the Plenary session time and place is established well in
advance." I am suggesting that the same logic apply to interim
sessions. If their time and place is established well in advance,
then they ought to be subject to the same logic and the same rule.
The bias toward plenary sessions is unfair to the many WGs who meet
on a regular basis, six times a year, and plan to progress their work
each time. This whole issue is exacerbated by the fact that the
plenary sessions are not geographically distributed. I think it's
high time for us to fix the P&P to stop discriminating against
interim WG meetings.
Roger
At 14:42 -0700 2005-02-09, <pat_thaler@agilent.com> wrote:
>I don't see any ambiguity around the existing section:
>No quorum is required at a plenary, a quorum is reqired at all interims.
>
>The suggested remedy would be a change. It would allow some interims
>to avoid any quorum requirement. I don't agree with that change.
>
>Pat
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
>Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Tuesday, 08 February, 2005 9:33 PM
>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
>
>
>Disapprove, with this comment:
>
>*In 7.2.4.2.1, it is time to end the ambiguity and uncertainty around
>WG interim sessions resulting from the statement "No quorum is
>required at meetings held in conjunction with the Plenary session
>since the Plenary session time and place is established well in
>advance. A quorum is required at other Working Group meetings. The
>Working Group Chair may vote at meetings. A quorum is at least
>one-half of the Working Group members." The sentences are also out of
>order.
>
>Remedy: Change the quote above to "The Working Group Chair may vote
>on all Working Group issues. No quorum is required at meetings, such
>as those held in conjunction with the Plenary session, whose session
>time and place are established at least six months in advance.
>Otherwise, a quorum is required; this may be established by the
>attendance at the session by at least half of the membership."
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 00:02 -0500 2005-01-08, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
>>Dear EC members,
>>
>>Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on
>>WG Voting Rules. This ballot was approved at the Friday November 19,
>>2004 EC meeting. The text is identical to that presented at the
>>meeting. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in
>>the attached ballot document.
>>
>>Ballot Duration: 1/8/2005 - 2/8/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST
>>
>>WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your
>>groups, and invite them to comment through you.
>>
>>Thanks & Regards,
>>
>>Mat
>>
>><<802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf>>
>>
>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>
>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>
>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>
>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>
>>email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
>>
>>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>>
>>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> > name="802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf"
>>Content-Description: 802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf
>>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> filename="802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf"
>>
>>Attachment converted: Little Al:802.0-WG_Voting_Rule#267CDC.pdf (PDF
>>/prvw) (00267CDC)
>
>----------
>This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
>This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.