Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
At 10:56 -0700 2005-02-10, <email@example.com> wrote:
>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.
I disagree. My proposal says "Otherwise, a quorum is required; this
may be established by the attendance at the session by at least half
of the membership." I think this clarifies the issue by stating that
quorum is established for the session as a whole, based on attendance
at the session as a whole, so it does not come and go during the
week. I'm perfectly open to further clarification.
>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.
Any of these approaches may be established practices, but they are
not stated in the P&P.
>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'm open to discussing the definition of "well 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 don't quite understand this point. Anyway, certain things are
certainly limited to 3 times a year, because certain things (such as
significant new PARs) require a plenary.
>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.
I don't mean in any way to suggest that every WG should have interim
WG meetings or that they are required for rapid progress.
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>Sent: Wednesday, 09 February, 2005 2:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
>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.
>At 14:42 -0700 2005-02-09, <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
>>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>>Behalf Of Roger B. Marks
>>Sent: Tuesday, 08 February, 2005 9:33 PM
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Voting Rules
>>Disapprove, with this comment:
>>*In 18.104.22.168.1, 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
>>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."
>>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,
>>>Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
>>>Senior Member Technical Staff
>>>BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
>>>Office: +1 973.633.6344
>>>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>> > name="802.0-WG_Voting_Rules-P&P_Revision_ballot.pdf"
>>>Attachment converted: Little Al:802.0-WG_Voting_Rule#267CDC.pdf (PDF
>>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.