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

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


I will have to vote Disapprove at present. 

This is grounded by the 802 P&P issues that we addressed and discussed at
the recent Cairns Interim session of 802.11. The 802.11 comments were
submitted from the WG Chair and membership in the email that Al Petrick
was requested by me to send to the 802 EC yesterday. 

Additionally to this it is my memberships view within the EXTRACT detail
from our Cairns minutes below: 

3.13.2.	Move to recommend that the 802.11 WG chair votes NO on the package
of changes to 802.0 policies and procedures, but the WG chair is to act on
individual items according to the comments received from the 802.11 WG
membership.	Moved Jon Rosdahl	Discussion	This is a problem since we have not recorded the will of
the group. Delete "will of".	The WG chair notes that a directed position requires 75%
of all voting members. Change direct to "recommend".	Second Denis Kuahara	Vote: Passes 60 : 0 : 4 

3.13.4.	Move to recommend that the 802.11 Working Group chair votes to
reflect the 802.11 WG membership's objection to the loss of the both the
Monday and Tuesday evening meeting times at Plenary sessions.	Moved Garth Hillman	Second Bruce Kraemer	Discussion	A directed position in says 75% of the people at
the meeting, not the total voting membership.	Vote:  Passes 56 : 2 : 2

I look forward to the currently planed comment resolution session on this
ballot on: Friday, 17 June from 11am-1pm ET

/ Stuart

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Sherman,
Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership &
Meeting P&P


I'm a little less organized than usual, and have not yet compiled the
voting list on this ballot.  However, the comments to date are included
below.  I'll try and get out the list tomorrow around noon time.

As a reminder, this ballot closes on Thursday.  If you have not yet
provided your comments / voted, please do.  

WG Chairs:

I know some WG reflectors have seen a lot of traffic on this topic.  If
you have not already done so, please summarize the traffic to date and
send it to the EC reflector.  That way it can be entered in the comment
log and considered for comment resolution.  We hope to have some suggested
resolutions and summaries going into the comment resolution session and
will need access to these comments for consideration.

Currently we plan to hold a comment resolution session on this ballot

	Friday, 17 June from 11am-1pm ET

Call-ins etc will be provided closer to the date.  Please plan to attend
if possible.  If you can't attend, please provide a surrogate attendee if
possible, or any additional inputs you may have prior to the meeting.
As usual we are trying to span a range of time zones from the UK to LA.
Hopefully the times selected are survivable.  I know Friday is not the
best day for a telecon (particularly in the UK), but I plan to have a
rotating schedule with each of the telecons on different days.  This one
just happened to wind up on a Friday.

As usual, I plan to abstain until the final voting since I'm collecting
the comments and proposing resolutions.  Below is the summary of the
comments (minus recent inputs from Al Petrick).



Comments Received

Bob O'Hara (2-May):

I vote APPROVE on this ballot.

Some comments:
In 7.2.1 there is mention of the "charter of the Working Group". What is
this and where is it defined?

In, first sentence: Do we need to define "initial Plenary session"
with "i.e., the first session of the Working Group after the approval of
its PAR by the IEEE Standards Board"?

In, first sentence: When do attendees at the first session of the
working group "become" members of the working group? This is not stated
and could be interpreted by later sentences not to happen until the third
plenary session. I think we need to state exactly when membership is
granted. Do we really need this section, at all? Section 7.2.2 allows the
WG to hold an election at any Plenary session with the same 75% vote that
it would take to send a resolution to remove an officer to the EC.
Assuming 75% would vote to ask the EC to remove an officer, that same 75%
could vote to hold an election and remove the officer themselves.

Geoff Thompson (3-May):

It all looks good.

I have two proposed changes, one editorial and another which is implied,
but should be formally added.

1) (Editorial) Move "Only members have the right to participate in the
discussions." from the text in to the list in

2) (Mildly substantive) Change: "To vote at meetings if and only if
        to: "To make motions and vote at meetings if and only if present."

Somebody else will have to take the formal action to make it happen.

Carl Stevenson (3-May):

I will champion Geoff's suggested changes.

One thing, however, that I think needs to be made clear - while only
(voting) members have the RIGHT to participate in discussions, non-voters
can/should be permitted to participate at the Chair's discretion (keep the
discussion open, but restrict to members as necessary to keep to
agenda/schedule and/or prevent non-voter(s) from unduly monopolizing the
group's time).

Tony Jeffree (4-May):

A couple of initial comments - I may have more once the WG has had a
chance to respond.

While most of what I see here is great, there are a couple of issues that
force me to vote Disapprove, but I will be happy to change to Approve if
they are addressed to my satisfaction.

Firstly, the wording around which Interim can be substituted for which
Plenary seems to be unnecessarily convoluted, and seems to have appeared
out of nowhere (no recollection of this being discussed in the context of
this change before). Apart from anything else, it will be a total PIA to
have to check whether an interim falls within or without 3 months of a
Plenary that the voter didn't have attendance credit for, and for
practical purposes, I don't believe that is how the WG Chairs will
evaluate attendance even if these words are approved (I certainly will not
- updating voting lists already takes way too much time, and this
particular change would be a pain to automate). So I would need the
wording to be changed so that there is no restriction on which Plenary an
interim is deemed to be a substitute for. I don't believe that this makes
any significant change to the overall effect of the membership rule, so
there is no good reason to keep it as stated in your draft.

Secondly, I believe that we should fix the current lack of clarity in the
rules about who is/is not eligible to vote in recirculations. I believe
that WGs currently restrict the voting list in recircs to the set of
voters that were eligible at the start of the ballot (this is logical - in
effect, the recirc is a continuation of the original ballot process.
However, I have already had one comment back from my WG offering the
opinion that some WGs use this approach effectively to disenfranchise new
voters, and suggesting that we cap the number of recircs at 3, forcing a
new full WG ballot if 3 recircs doesn't fix the problem. I'm not sure that
I agree with that proposal, but we could certainly add clarity to our
rules by explicitly stating what the voting rule is here (which is
currently not done).

The text of currently contains the only words we have on
recircs, viz:

"There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation
process see subclause Resolution of comments, objections, and
negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual."

I would propose we change it thusly:

"There is a recirculation requirement. For guidance on the recirculation
process see subclause Resolution of comments, objections, and
negative votes in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. Only
those WG participants that were voting members of the WG at the time that
a WG letter ballot was started are entitled to vote on recirculations of
that ballot."

Thirdly, I support the improvements proposed by Geoff T.

Carl Stevenson (4-May):

I also support the changes proposed by Tony.

Geoff Thompson (4-May):

I suggest we "improve" the clarity about who gets to vote in WG ballot
recircs by adopting wording that is similar to what goes on in Sponsor
Balloting (e.g. the "balloting group" is the WG membership at the time the
document is voted out to ballot -OR- at the time the ballot is opened). In
that way we will further the aspect of WG balloting that is "training" for
Sponsor Ballot.

I support in broad principle Tony's concept of cutting off recircs that go
on forever.

Tony Jeffree (4-May):

The "balloting group" wording would certainly help.

Pat Thaler (6-May):

We seem to have a contradiction between 7.2.2 and 7.1.3, or if not
strictly a contradiction, a situation where a working group could have
failed to reaffirm the current chair and not be able to hold an election.
Even where the current chair is empty (or the working group is new and has
not yet elected a chair) 7.2.2 might block an election.

7.2.2 includes:
A Working Group may elect a new Chair at any Plenary session, subject to
confirmation by the LMSC Executive Committee. A motion to hold an election
must be passed by 75% of the voting members of the Working Group present.

There isn't any qualification on the need for a 75% approval of a motion
to hold an election. It doesn't appear to matter whether there is a
sitting chair or whether we are at the March Plenary of an even year. I
don't think we have been applying this statement. We have been holding
elections in March of even numbered years or for empty chairs without
first voting on whether to hold an election, but that is what the rule
says and we should correct it.

Take a case where March in an even numbered year rolls around and
reaffirmation of the current chair fails 33% for and 67% against.
According to 7.2.2 it now takes a 75% vote to hold an election. If the 33%
don't want a new election the chair is empty - no affirmation and no
election. Or the current chair may have already been chair for 8 years and
the 75% vote to allow the chair to run again has failed.

Take a new working group with a high level of contention. If a faction
doesn't want the group to go forward or fears that the group will elect a
chair undesirable to them, they could prevent an election from occurring.

A group could be deadlocked - unable to affirm a current chair (or without
a current chair) and unable to elect a new one. 

I suggest we replace this text with:
A Working Group may elect a new Chair at any Plenary session, subject to
confirmation by the LMSC Executive Committee. When there is an interim
chair or the current chair has resigned, an election should be held at the
next Plenary. In the March Plenary of even numbered years, an election is
held. At any other Plenary a motion to hold an election must be passed by
75% of the voting members of the Working Group present.

I agree with Tony and Geoff here. If we were going to do something about
cutting off recircs that go on forever, I would prefer that we do it on a
time basis (e.g. 8 months from the opening of the Working Group
ballot) rather than based on the number of recirculations. One could, due
to some minor process glitch, have to run an extra recirculation fairly
close on the heels of other recirculations and it would be a shame to have
to run a new Working Group ballot because it moved you from 3 to 4
recirculations. On the other hand, a group might dawdle on resolving
comments and starting recirculations on a lower priority project so that
the time stretches out. The problem of disenfranchised new voters (and
potentially stale old voters) increases with time rather than with

(Reply to Guenter Kleindl comments):
I don't understand the member's comment at least for groups that hold
interims between plenaries on a regular basis. There are three plenaries
and three interims (if within the span of the most recent three plenaries
means what I think it intended to mean though I think a strict reading of
the wording could interpret it differently) that can count toward
retaining membership in the working group. If one wants to maintain
membership in two Working Groups and those two groups have concurrent
interims, one can miss two of the six meetings altogether and attend one
Plenary and one interim for each group to retain voting rights.

For a member with an unusual problem that interferes with attendance
(e.g., a medical or family situation) a chair can use the rule above
"Membership may be declared at the discretion of the Working Group chair"
to resolve the issue. In my 6 years as a Working Group chair, I did that
on one occasion though in the end the member's medical problem persisted
and he was unable to continue.

Those who choose to be a voting member in two Working Groups take on a
heavier burden, but they still need to be able to devote attendance to
both groups to keep up with the work and be a knowledgeable voter. With
the existing rule, one can retain voting rights by attending one fourth of
the meetings and is just too few.

Based on my previous comments and these comments, I'm voting disapprove
until fixes are in place.

Additional comments:
There is no definition of "affiliation statement". I'm assuming that it is
intended to be a way to get consultants and such to state who is paying
for their attendance, but I think that is unenforceable. Also it is
contradictory to the statement above that "members shall participate in
the consensus process ... as individuals, and not as organizational
representatives." A fine statement of principles if unenforceable. The
requirement for an affiliation statement says we don't believe that fine
statement is operational. When a consultant says their affiliation is
self, are you going to contest it? I'm sure I can't vote for that
requirement if you don't define what it is. Even if you do define it, I'm
hesitant to approve it going in.

I agree with Tony's comments about the bookkeeping required for the
"within 3 months of the Plenary for which it substitutes". Also, under the
current rules, many people become voters by attending a Plenary and the
following interim (especially at the start of a new area of work).
These people often continue as valuable participants. Under the new rule,
it appears to me that wouldn't qualify as it could only substitute for the
Plenary they attended. This extends the time to attain voting rights from
4 months to 6 months (for instance if they attended an interim in January
which they substituted for the November Plenary and attended the March
Plenary they could become a voter in July but if they attended in March
and April they couldn't become a voter in July.) This seems unreasonable.
I think the problem this is addressing was that the current rule is
ambiguous on how old the interim could be. In particular, it could be
argued under the current rule that someone could gain membership by having
attended a Plenary 4 plenaries ago and an interim before that and
requesting voting membership by attending the current Plenary. At the end
of that Plenary they would not have attended two of the last four
plenaries and they definitely wouldn't satisfy the new rule regarding the
three most recent plenary sessions and the interims within that span. So
they would lose voting rights at the end of the Plenary.

To prevent this, the interim should be required to be within the span of
the three most recent plenary sessions (i.e. the two plenaries prior to
the one at which membership is requested and the one at which membership
is requested) which would be tighter than the old rule but looser than the
draft rule.
Please add: Members are responsible for maintaining their contact
information so that they can receive email ballots and can be contacted if
their email is bouncing. Membership may be lost if the member fails to
keep their contact information up to date.

With the mobility of our members, this is a problem that must be
addressed. Also, I believe 802.3 has been applying this rule for some time
and I wouldn't like to see it cause a challenge to progress of a draft in
the future.

"within the span of the three most recent plenary sessions. Loss of
membership through lack of attendance is determined at the end of each
plenary session." It isn't clear to me whether "the three most recent
plenary sessions" includes the current session or is the three before. I
was thinking the latter in my prior email on this, but maybe it meant only
the current one plus the two before in which the comment from the
802.19 participant is correct. I think this would be okay. Our intent is
to ensure voters participate enough in our groups to be knowledgeable
participants. Clearly, this is a greater challenge if one is trying to be
a voter in two groups but it is a reasonable requirement.

There are a number of empty subclauses. I assume the intent is that the
content of these clauses retains its current content rather than that they
become empty clauses on approval of this revision.
Okay, I'm confused. The removal process takes a vote of 75% of the Working
Group (presumably at a Working Group interim or at a Plenary since it says
"members present") followed by 30 days written notice and a meeting of the
Executive Committee (which according to our rules only happens at
plenaries since we decided not to allow teleconference meetings). So this
process takes at least two months (given the usual distance between WG
interims and plenaries) and for some groups at least
4 months. But according to 7.2.2 the group could have voted at the Plenary
to have an election for chair which removes the need to write up an
indictment, takes effect within the week and doesn't have the uncertainty
of an Executive Committee meeting on the charges. This process seems
unlikely to occur. The only flaw in that is that 7.2.2 only mentions
election of a chair at any Plenary. Vice-chair should probably be added to
7.2.2's statement on having an election at any Plenary.

Ivan Reede [802.1] (4-May):

If one reads this well, one finds that optional attendance to interim
sessions now becomes mandatory. Is this what is intended?

I understand you want to age out inactive participants faster, but moving
from not being ousted by not attending 1 plenary and at least one interim
in 8 meetings to being ousted for not attending a plenary and the
preceding or subsequent interim is in my opinion really too hasty.
If we read this right, a person who misses a plenary or an interim (let's
say for business reasons) is automatically ousted from the voting pool if
he's sick and absent from any of the next two interims or any of the next
two plenaries. It also means that if one was sick in the previous year, he
can't miss a single interim or plenary!

I think that's wrong. I certainly hope that was not the intended effect or
that I understand wrong or that the wording will be re-done.

Here is the offending sentence:

Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one Plenary and at
least one other Plenary or duly constituted interim session within the
span of the three most recent Plenary sessions.

Could you please clarify this?

I would also like to propose that one could consider lack of ballot
response at the same level as absences to two of the last four plenaries.
Therefore, I suggest that instead of modifying the presence requirements,
you simply add to the old text that voting rights are lost if one fails to
attend 2 of the last 4 plenaries as before, while adding that not
responding to a ballot counts to remove the effect of presence at the last
attended interim or plenary. I believe that would really promote
participation in ballots and get rid of non-participants faster... i.e.
skipping a plenary and then, within the next 15 months, not responding to
a ballot would allow the chair to eliminate one from the voting pool. As
non-participants drop out, they usually both miss a plenary and fail to
return ballots. A non-participant who would fail to participate in a
plenary and the interims and fail to return a single ballot could then be
removed from the pool immediately. However, that would not penalize or put
at risk active participants who happen to go on a business trip during a
meeting and fall sick once, during the next
12 months.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Guenter Kleindl [802.19] (4-May):

I have a serious problem with the change in " Loss" and the new
wording "within the span of the three most recent Plenary sessions."
Whereas in the deleted " Retention" the wording was "two of the
last four Plenary session meetings.


If you have voting rights in 2 WGs, then with the change from "four" to
"three" it becomes very hard to maintain voting rights in both WGs. For
example, you may miss only 1 meeting out of 9 (5 plenary, 4 interim), in
order not to lose any voting right!!


Keep "four"

Steve Whitesell [802.19] (5 May):

My comments on the 802 P&P changes:

Clause The title of the clause, "Removal of Working Group
Officers Confirmed by the EC," and the wording in the third line,
"misrepresented by one or more of its officers (confirmed by the EC),"
is a bit confusing, even for folks whose first language is English. One
way of reading this wording is that the discussion concerns only those
officers whose selection is confirmed (ratified) by the Executive
Committee, and that there are other officers whose selection is not
confirmed (ratified) by the EC. Another possible reading of these phrases
is that the "removal" or the "misrepresentation" is something that is
confirmed by the EC.

Also in the first line of this clause, it appears that two attempts were
made to revise the parenthetical "(WG Chair)" to "(WG Officers)", with the
net result being "(Officers WG Officers)".

Clause The first "WG" should be "WGs" as the antecedent of the
pronoun "their". Alternatively, the first "WG" could be changed to "A WG"
along with changing "their" to "its".

802.18 Participant via Mike Lynch (5 May):

Pg 1, "Rational for proposed changes", 1st pgh, 9th bullet: I don't see
any comments/changes related to Quorum in the document.

Pg 3, Section "Rights", 2nd pgh: I don't understand the intent of
the sentence. Is this trying to say that participants in the formation of
a WG (prior to acceptance of the PAR and 5C by EC) have these rights? OR,
is it trying to say - participants in a WG have these rights while they
are 'observer' status (prior to qualifying for 'member' status)?

Sorin Goldenberg [802.15] (9 May):

I have some questions/comments on the attached document:

1. "The interim session must have occurred within 3 months of the
Plenary session for which it substitutes."
Does that mean that if for example one attends the March Plenary, then
participation in May interim will not count for gaining voting rights?

2. "Membership is also lost if a person fails to attend one
Plenary and at least one other Plenary or duly constituted interim session
within the span of the three most recent Plenary sessions. Loss of
membership through lack of attendance is determined at the end of each
Plenary session."

A. The sentence is confusing - and since it is most important it should be
very clear to all members. Does the span of the three most recent plenary
sessions include the current session? If true, it is very constraining. If
not true - what is the intent of "lack of attendance is determined at the
end of each Plenary session."? The lack of attendance can be determined at
the beginning of a session as well.

B. The "duly constituted interim session" definition is missing.

3. What are the intentions for transition from old rules to new one?

Larry Arnett [802.15] (10 May):

Paragraph 7.2.2 WG Officers


Request for clarification: This paragraph addresses WG Officers but only
requires the Chair to be an IEEE and IEEE-SA member. Is that the intent?
Since paragraph encourages ALL WG members to join the IEEE and
IEEE-SA, it would seem reasonable for all WG Chairs and vice Chairs to be
expected to join IEEE & IEEE-SA.


Statement of Preference: I favor maintaining the term limits for the WG
leadership. WG chairs can gain too much influence as time progresses for
the chairmanship to become a career position. Even when performance is
less than superior, removing incumbents can be very difficult. There are
many other ways an emeritus WG leader can serve the good of the IEEE 802
process without holding one office for a decade or more.

Recommendation: Remove "unless approved by a 75% vote of the Working


Paragraph Establishment (under Membership)


Request for clarification: I believe "letter of intent and/or affiliation
statement may be required for membership" mixes two items of recent
discussion and should be clarified and stipulated separately.

#1 - Within the past two years a policy was brought in to force in our
sister WG 802.11 that members were required to submit a letter (e-mail) of
intent to maintain and thereafter become 802.11 members. We were told this
was being mandated by the SEC. I have no problem with that and therefore,
with regard to letters of intent, the wording "may be" should be changed
to "are". Further, instead of calling it a "letter of intent"
it seems more direct to call it a "request for membership". The text
should also specify that the request for membership must be submitted
after meeting the "two out of four" Plenary attendance requirement yet
prior to the start of the Plenary session at which the granting of
membership rights is expected.

#2 - Recently I have heard calls for public declaration of affiliation.
It appears that text of the proposed LMSC P&P revisions enables such
requirements if the Chair so decides. I favor required declaration of
affiliations since we are an open standards body and often a member's
actions can be better understood when their affiliation is obvious.

In many of the WGs, there is currently too much ill will regarding
consultants and speculation as to who might be a paid vote. This is an old
and on going problem that deserves being addressed. Obtaining a 75% or
more consensus to move forward on any technical issue requires building
consensus and striking compromises. Without knowing affiliation, it is
often difficult to understand the real influences on an individual's vote.

I am not familiar with the meeting registration practices outside of
802.11 and 802.15. For these two groups, the Wireless World website
requires one to provide contact information which includes company
affiliation. By maintaining current contact information on Wireless World
we are constantly maintaining our affiliation declarations. I believe for
all 802 WGs company affiliation is printed on attendance name badges. I
see it as appropriate that all members be able to know who is paying the
bills for any other member attending IEEE 802 sessions. Since a majority
of the 802 members have their affiliation benefactors name printed on
their name badge, it is fair to expect similar postings on consultants'
name badges.

I recommend that a second affiliation field be added to the registration
process and the information included on the attendee's name badge. When
anyone's attendance is provided by or billed (compensation or expenses) to
any party other than the affiliation given in the first affiliation field,
that affiliation must also be declared. (i.e., XYZ Consulting LLC, in
partnership with A Very Big Company, Inc.). While more thought is needed
on this topic, perhaps consultants who are being funded by more than one
client, could disclose their current clients to the working Chair or to a
vice-Chair of their choice and then be considered as being truly free to
vote without encumbrance. The working group leadership can then monitor to
verify the consultant is truly a contributing participant in the work
group meetings and not just a vote.
Clearly wording would need to be carefully crafted as to avoid many
potential loopholes.

I would also request that if anyone, including the chairs, is able to gain
access to the wireless world database of member profiles, then all other
members should have the same access. (I will note that e-mail addresses
are required for authentication in prevention of list-server abuse. I
would favor maintaining privacy of e-mail addresses to help prevent our
being targeted by spam servers.) I like to think that within the 802 WGs
we work as a team and as such should be able to easily contact one another
between meetings.


Request for Clarification: New text associating interim sessions with an
adjacent plenary session (within 3 months) that the member did not attend
will eliminate the fast track to membership (i.e., March Plenary
+ May Interim = July voting rights.) Was that the intent? Even though I
have exploited this rule (because I could) to gain voting rights, I
support this change and think it makes good sense.

Further Clarification: How will you determine not attended? I would
suggest that if the person failed to meet the 75% attendance rule at the
Plenary, then an adjacent interim could be used. For example I may use one
Plenary for attendance credit for one WG. At the same plenary I may attend
some sessions of another WG but have less than 75% credit. I should not be
exempt from using the adjacent interim for credit in another WG.


Request for Clarification: Please define meeting hours in "Participation
at a session is defined as attending 75% of the meeting hours of a
session." I hope any time Sunday, and evenings of Monday, Tuesday, and
Thursday are still exempt from the count of meeting hours.

Related to this, I often find some TGs will have a slow day mid week and
may cancel a session. Once the agenda w\graphic is approved by the WG in
opening plenary, if attendees show up at a session which was canceled,
they should still be able to receive credit for that session.

I believe there are many good reasons for someone to establish and
maintain voting rights in more than one Work Group. Rules should not be
enacted that would eliminate the ability to participate in more than one
Work Group. 802.11 and 802.15 are too similar to be mutually exclusive.
Likewise, with the potential new RE activity occurring in 802.1 and 802.3,
some of the wireless members may be motivated to start attending
802.1 meeting also.


Paragraph Loss (under Membership)


Request for Clarification: "Loss of membership is through lack of
attendance is determined at the end of each Plenary." Is the current
ending session included as one of "the three most recent Plenary

Either way, as I read process for gaining membership, an attendee with 75%
attendance participation at March and July Plenary sessions could attend
the following July Plenary (one year later) and gain voting rights at the
beginning of the session and then lose them at the end of the same
session. Is that intended? If so, it seems silly.


75% Mar-P


75% July-P






75% July-P --> Voter 

        Sept-I --> Non Voter

Matthew Shoemake (13 May):

There are a lot of nice changes to the rules that are being proposed, but
there is one that I am opposed to. It relates to establishing voting
rights per the text below:
"	Establishment

All persons participating in the initial Plenary session meeting of the
Working Group become members of the Working Group.  Thereafter, membership
in a Working Group is established by participating in the meetings of the
Working Group at two out of the last four Plenary sessions., In addition,
and (optionally) a letter of intent and/or affiliation statement may be
required for membership in a to the Chair of the Working Group.
Participation at a meeting is defined as at least 75% physical presence at
that a meeting.  Participation at a session is defined as attending 75% of
the meeting hours at a session.  Membership starts at the beginning of the
third Plenary session attended by the participant.  One duly constituted
interim session of a Working Group or subtask group meeting may be
substituted for a the Working Group meetings at one of the two Plenary
sessions (See subclause
The interim session must have occurred within 3 months of the Plenary
session for which it substitutes."

These changes mean it will take new members 6-8 months to achieve voting
rights, depending on whether or not their first meeting is a Plenary or
Interim. This is caused by the last sentence which says, "The interim
session must have occurred within 3 months of the Plenary session for
which it substitutes." I agree that there needs to be a time limit on the
interim that can be substituted. Something like this would work better,
"The interim session must have been within the last four Interim meetings
and no more than one year preceding the Plenary session at which voting
rights are obtained."

Thanks for considering this comment.

Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
Office: +1 973.633.6344
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 10:10 AM
Subject: +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ WG Membership & Meeting P&P

Dear EC members,

Attached you will find the text for an LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG
Membership & Meeting Policies and Procedures. This ballot was approved at
the Friday March 18, 2005 EC meeting. The text is identical to that
presented at the meeting (but changes have been highlighted).  The purpose
and rationale for the ballot are as given in the attached ballot document.

Ballot Duration:  5/2/2005 - 6/2/2005 @ 11:59 PM EST

WG/TAG chairs, please distribute this P&P revision ballot to your groups,
and invite them to comment through you. Please direct any comments on this
revision to the reflector for collection.

Thanks & Regards,



Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
Office: +1 973.633.6344

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.