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

Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot titled 'LMSCOrganization'

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@JEFFREE.CO.UK] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:24 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Comment resolution on LMSC P&P ballot 
> titled 'LMSCOrganization'
> At least one suggestion that came up during a previous 
> telecon on this subject was that the initial membership of a 
> new WG should be established in exactly the same way as 
> membership in an established WG - i.e., that you would gain 
> voting membership at the 3rd Plenary attended (2nd if there 
> was an interim in between). The Chair would be an EC 
> appointed position until such a time as the WG had voting 
> members and could therefore hold elections.
> I think this idea has merit.
> Regards,
> Tony

Like Tony, I think this idea has merit ... With one minor modification of
*requiring* an interim between the 1st and 2nd plenaries so things don't
drag on for too long (see below).

For the first couple of meeting sessions of a new WG, there is a lot of
organizational/planning stuff to be done and I see no harm in an apppointed
Interim Chair coordinating that.  During that interval, any formal
procedural actions could be required to have a higher level of approval than
a simple majority (2/3 or 3/4 of those present???).

People would have to actually participate (more than just once) to get
voting rights - this would eliminate the problem that seems to occur under
the current rules, where quite a few people frequently divert their time
from other WGs - for one ssession - just to "kick the tires" in the new WG
and gain voting rights in the new WG, then aren't seen again for long
intervals, if at all until they "age off" of the voting rolls.

This issue - the non-attendance of the "tire-kickers" - seems to tend make
it for new WGs to achieve quorums at interims - which I think penalizes
those who actually DO participate and want to advance the work.

Requiring 75% attendance at 2 sessions rather than just one - and I think
they should be consecutive (as in the 1st and 2nd sessions of the new WG -
and the 2nd session could/probably should be a full WG interim so it doesn't
take too long to establish a pool of voting members) - would tend to
minimize the number of "tire-kickers" and result in a pool of voters with a
more serious commitment to advancing the work of the WG.

Since most WGs (at least the wireless ones) already have interims at the 2
month intervals between plenaries, this would allow a pool of "qualified"
(by attendance credit) voters to be established by the beginning of the 2nd
plenary - an interval of 4 months) at which point "permanent" WG officers
could be elected.

It should be noted that this would NOT have the effect of *preventing*
anyone from "dropping in" to monitor what's going on in the new WG, keep
familiar with where it's going, and decide if they want to really
participate and become voting members in the normal way - it would simply
prevent those with little or no commitment to the work of the WG from
adversely affecting quorum at interims or, for example, using (more easily
gained) voting rights to "drop in" for the sole purpose of blocking progress
by those who ARE committed to advancing the work and who ARE participating

I think that this coupled with the discussion of trimming the "age off"
period to a 3 plenary window, rather than the current 4, would facilitate

An alternative (or additional) measure that I (and others) have suggested is
to eliminate, or considerably reduce, the quorum requirement for (full WG)
interims (only).

Since the wireless groups routinely have interims at the 2 month intervals
between plenaries and they are noticed FAR in advance, just like plenaries
(which, per my understanding, was the rationale for a quorum existing - by
definition - at plenaries) - it still seems to me that eliminating or
considerably reducing the quorum requirement would be more fair to those who
actually DO participate regularly and do (at least the bulk of) the work.


This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.  This list is maintained by Listserv.