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

Re: [802SEC] straw poll on interim EC telecon meetings

Hi Paul,

While this is something I would like to see happen - I share the concerns 
raised below that this isn't something our rules currently support.

Best regards,

***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** <> 
wrote on 17/04/2010 06:27:20:

> Paul,
> I am generally supportive of some sort of "continuous processing 
> capability".  If the standards board can do this, we can too.  I'm 
> not sure teleconference is the right format.  I think it requires 
> some thought.  The BOG seems to be able to conduct business by 
> teleconference.  How do the account for international participation?
> Our TAGs (well 802.18) seems to be able to conduct business by 
> teleconference.  How do they deal with international participation?
> Concerning the actual rules, I've tried to summarize all the 
> relevant ones at the bottom of this e-mail.  There is a lot.  Here 
> is my general take:
> IEEE and SASB rules explicitly allow us to conduct business by 
> teleconference as long as our own rules don't prohibit it.
> There don't seem to be specific notice requirements except that you 
> give notice.
> Unfortunately, our own rules do seem to prohibit it.  (See 
> particularly LMSC OM,, and
>         Geoff seemed to have referenced older versions of this 
> material but he had the gist of it
>         Our P&P are structured around the assumption that we only 
> meet at plenary sessions
>         I note though that some of this material (like limiting 
> time) we seem to ignore a lot...
> PAR votes are particularly prohibited by the elaborate process we've
> set up (LMSC OM 12.2 and 12.3)
> Fundamentally if you want this, I think you need a rules change...
> Here are some suggestions at a work around:
> In the past I've had to chair meetings with participants from Europe
> / Asia / NA.  What I did was hold the meeting twice (10 AM / 7 PM 
> seemed to work well).  Then everyone got a chance to air their 
> issues.  I'd publish draft minutes from the first meeting prior to 
> the second meeting which provided some continuity.  Then I collected
> strawpoll votes across both meeting to arrive at a consensus.  While
> it was a lot more work for the chair and secretary, this seemed to 
> make all the participants happy.  Interestingly many people did 
> attend both meetings anyway.
> Perhaps we can consider a similar process here.  Conduct two 
> teleconferences (assuming we need to accommodate Asia, otherwise one
> may be enough) on the same agenda.  Collect (in minutes) input from 
> each.  Publish the draft minutes from both meetings for 
> consideration.  Then conduct e-mail ballots on all the key topics (I
> suggest keeping the agenda limited so we don't have too many votes 
> at once).  The rules say you can close out the ballots early if you 
> get enough votes.  As long as we are all engaged and participating, 
> you should be able to get the votes done in a day.  Note that I 
> think this still won't accommodate PAR votes, our rules are too 
> specific to allow this.
> Thanks,
> Mat
> ---------------------------------------------
> IEEE ByLaws - 300 Management
> (2) The Board of Directors, the Major Boards, the Standing 
> Committees, any other board or committee reporting directly to the 
> Board of Directors, and any board or committee of any organizational
> unit of the IEEE, may meet and act upon the vote of its members by 
> any means of telecommunication. The normal voting requirements shall
> apply when action is taken by means of telecommunications equipment 
> allowing all persons participating in the meeting to hear each other
> at the same time.
> From SASB OM:
> 4.2.6 Continuous processing of IEEE-SA Standards Board and committee
> agenda items
> In order to reduce the time involved in standards development, the 
> IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees may use continuous 
> processing through electronic technologies to consider appropriate 
> agenda items. Each agenda item to be considered under this 
> methodology shall be carefully appraised as to its suitability for 
> this process. The IEEE-SA Standards Board and its committees should 
> establish means for
> continuous processing according to their unique needs. These methods
> are publicly available by contacting the Secretary of the IEEE-SA 
> Standards Board.
> Any votes taken by the IEEE-SA Standards Board during continuous 
> processing are subject to the provisions stated in subclause 5.1 of 
> the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws.
> 5.3.3 Standards development meetings
> Standards development meetings are to be conducted consistent with 
> the principle of openness. Working group participants may include 
> members and non-members when the requirements to gain membership are
> specified in Sponsor or working group P & P. A 'meeting' includes 
> any convening for which notice was required to be given or for which
> membership-credits or other participation rights are either earned 
> or exercised. Meetings may be in-person or may be via electronic 
> means, as appropriate.
> While a WG may maintain its own participants list to track 
> membership status, the authoritative list of participants is 
> maintained in an IEEE-SA database.
> Appointment process for IEEE-SA BOG members-at-large 
> appointed by the eligible members of the IEEE-SA BOG
> ...
> Those members-at-large shall be appointed by a plurality of the 
> votes cast by the eligible members of the IEEE-SA BOG at a meeting, 
> normally held by teleconference, scheduled prior to the last 
> regularly scheduled meeting of the IEEE Board of Directors in the 
> year of appointment.
> 4. Procedures for the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors 
> ...
> 4.3.3 Meetings
> Dates for regular meetings shall be approved by the IEEE-SA BOG. 
> Special meetings of the IEEE-SA BOG may be called by the IEEE-SA 
> President if necessary.
> Meetings may be held in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,
> or by any combination of these three means. Members of the IEEE-SA 
> BOG are responsible for the costs of attending meetings.
> 5.2 LMSC Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)
> e) Between plenary and interim meetings, the Chair of a TAG is 
> empowered to schedule
> teleconference meetings to allow the TAG to conduct business as 
> required, provided that
> the date and time of the teleconference and agenda are published on 
> the TAG website and
> e-mail reflector at least 5 calendar days before the meeting.
> f) Votes on TAG documents other than recommended practices and guides 
may be
> conducted verbally during teleconference meetings if a majority of 
> the TAG members are
> present.
> 7. Sponsor Vote
> Approval of an action requires approval by at least a majority vote 
> of the Sponsor of voting
> members voting approve or disapprove. Notification of the potential 
> for action shall be included
> on any distributed agendas for meetings.
> These actions include
> a) Adoption of new or revised Sponsor procedures, interest 
> categories, or revisions
> thereof
> b) Formation of a subgroup, including its scope and duties
> c) Disbandment of subgroups
> d) Approval of minutes
> e) Approval of public statements
> f) Approval of change of the Sponsor scope
> g) Approval of termination of the Sponsor
> h) Approval of draft standards for balloting
> i) Approval to forward PARS to IEEE-SA NesCom
> j) Apporval to forward draft standards to IEEE-SA RevCom
> k) Other motions brought to the floor by members (when deemed in 
> order by the chair)
> Voting at Meetings
> Only members of the Sponsor with voting rights are counted in the 
> approval rate calculation in
> determining the approval threshold for any Sponsor vote. Unless 
> specified otherwise in the
> LMSC P&P or this OM, all Sponsor votes are in addition subject to 
> the following provisions:
> The Chair may vote only if his vote can change the outcome. Votes on
> disciplinary matters
> concerning Sponsor members shall meet or exceed a 2/3 approval 
> threshold. For other matters,
> votes shall meet the approval thresholds in Robert's Rules.
> Electronic Balloting
> At times, it may become necessary for the Sponsor to render a 
> decision that cannot be made prior
> to the close of one plenary but must be made prior to the opening of
> the following plenary. Such
> decisions may be made using electronic balloting. Provision shall be
> made for the LMSC
> membership to observe and comment on Sponsor electronic ballots. All
> comments from those
> who are not members of the Sponsor shall be considered. Commenters 
> who are not members of
> the Sponsor are urged to seek a voting member of the Sponsor 
> (normally their WG or TAG
> Chair) to include the viewpoint of the commenter in their vote.
> The LMSC Chair, or a Sponsor member designated by the Chair (usually
> a Vice Chair), shall
> determine the duration of the ballot, issue the ballot by e-mail and
> tally the votes after the ballot
> is closed. Sponsor voting members shall return their vote and 
> comments by e-mail.
> The minimum duration of an electronic ballot shall be 10 days. For 
> urgent matters once
> sufficient response is received to clearly decide a matter, the 
> Ballot may be closed early. This
> allows a decision to be reach in less than 10 days. Ballots where 
> the possibility of an early close
> exists must be clearly marked accordingly. Otherwise, the tally of 
> votes shall not be made until
> at least 24 hours after the close of the ballot to allow time for 
> delivery of the e-mail votes.
> The affirmative vote of a majority of all members of the Sponsor 
> with voting rights is required
> for an electronic ballot to pass except when specified otherwise by 
> the LMSC P&P or this OM.
> If at the end of the ballot insufficient votes have been received to
> pass the ballot, the ballot fails.
> The motion and tally of any email votes since the last EC meeting 
> shall be included in the
> minutes of the next EC meeting.
> 4.1.3 Meetings
> Sponsor meetings are open to observers. However, some meetings may 
> occur in Executive
> Session [see subclause 6.3 of the LMSC Policies and Procedures]. An 
> open discussion or
> acknowledgement of a request to participate in a particular 
> discussion is determined by the
> Chair.
> Procedure for Limiting the Length of the IEEE 802 Sponsor 
> a) The reports from the WGs and TAGs should deal primarily with 
> issues related to LMSC
> as a whole or inter-group coordination. Reports of those items that 
> will be covered in the
> plenary meeting should be minimized.
> b) The maker of the motion, after the motion has been seconded, has 
> up to five minutes to
> explain the motion and to answer questions about it.
> c) Each Sponsor member has two minutes of uninterrupted time to 
> state an opinion about
> the motion. It is not necessary that all two minutes be used.
> d) The opening Sponsor meeting shall start at 8:00 a.m. and end no 
> later than 10:30 a.m. on
> Monday morning and the closing Sponsor meeting shall start at 1:00 
> p.m. and shall end
> no later than 6:00 p.m. on Friday of the plenary session.
> e) If the Sponsor so modifies a WG's motion that the WG Chair believes 
the WG
> membership may no longer support the revised motion then the WG 
> should be given the
> opportunity to reconsider what action it wishes to take and present 
> it to the Sponsor at the
> next Sponsor meeting. This action can be accomplished by a 
> Privileged Non-debatable
> "Request to Defer Action" made by the affected WG Chair which will 
> automatically
> cause all action on the motion to be deferred until the next regular
> Sponsor meeting.
> 5.2 Interim Sessions
> In addition to plenary sessions, IEEE 802 WGs and WG subgroup may 
> hold interim sessions. An
> interim session may be for a single WG or WG subgroup or it may be a
> joint interim session for
> any combination of WGs, and subgroups.
> Interim sessions shall have: 1) Reasonable notification (>30 days) 
> in addition to any
> announcement given at a Plenary session, and 2) Few last minute 
> shifts in location (<< 1 per
> year).
> 12.2 LMSC Approval (of PARS)
> A complete proposed PAR and, if applicable, responses to the five 
> criteria per 12.5 below shall
> be submitted to the Sponsor via the Sponsor email reflector for 
> review no less than 30 days prior
> to the doay of the opening Sponsor meeting of an LMSC plenary 
> session. The submittal
> message should include Internet links to the required submittal 
> documents. Presence of the
> submittal message in the reflector archive (with time stamp) is 
> evidence of delivery.
> Approval of the PAR by the EC is contingent on inclusion of accepted
> responses describing how
> the proposed PAR meets the five criteria and a work plan for the 
> development of managed object
> definitions, either as part of the PAR or as a part of an additional
> PAR. PARs which introduce no
> new functionality are exempt from the requirement to provide 
> responses to the five Criteria.
> Examples of such PARs are: Protocol Implementation Conformance 
> Statements (PICS),
> Managed Object Conformance Statements (MOCS), PARs to correct 
> errors, and PARs to
> consolidate documents....
> 12.3 Plenary Review (of PARs)
> In order to ensure wide consideration by IEEE 802 members, PARs for 
> significant new work
> (those that will result in a new Standard/Recommended Practice/Guide
> or an addition to an
> existing one) shall pass through the following process during the 
> IEEE 802 plenary session week
> in which Sponsor approval is sought:
> Prior to the start of the IEEE 802 session, draft PARs and 5 
> criteria under consideration for
> approval by the Sponsor shall be available at a publicly accessible 
> URL and an email sent
> to the Sponsor reflector should contain the URLs required for 
> viewing the PAR and
> associated documentation. WG chairs should inform their WGs of the 
> PARs that have been
> circulated to the Sponsor. Once approved / disapproved by the 
> Sponsor, PARs and
> supporting material should be removed from the public URL. 
> Supporting material shall be
> available in sufficient detail for members of other WGs to 
> understand if they have an
> interest in the proposed PAR (i.e., if they would like to contribute
> to/participate in the
> proposed work, or identify if there is conflict with existing or 
> anticipated work in their
> current WG).
> It is highly recommended that a tutorial be given at a previous 
> plenary session for major
> new work items.
> WGs, other than the proposing WG, shall express concerns to the 
> proposing WG as soon as
> possible and shall submit comments to the proposing WG and the 
> Sponsor by e-mail not
> later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday of the plenary session.
> The proposing WG shall post a response to commenting WG and to the 
> Sponsor together
> with a Final PAR on a public website and circulate the relevant URL 
> on the Sponsor
> reflector not later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday of the plenary 
> session. It will be assumed
> that insufficient coordination and/or inter-WG consideration had 
> occurred prior to the
> submission of the PAR if this deadline is not met, and the proposed 
> PAR will not be
> considered by the Sponsor at the closing Sponsor meeting.
> Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
> Engineering Fellow
> BAE Systems -  Electronics, Intelligence & Support (EI&S)
> Office: +1 973.633.6344
> Cell: +1 973.229.9520
> email:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List ***** [mailto:
>] On Behalf Of Paul Nikolich
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:19 AM
> Subject: [802SEC] straw poll on interim EC telecon meetings
> Dear EC members,
> I'd like to get your feedback on holding an EC meeting via 
> teleconference between plenary sessions (for example in the 1st week
> of June, October and February).  My though is we'd hold a 2 hour 
> telecon to make decisions on time-critical items such as PAR 
> approvals, Sponsor Ballot initiation approvals, RevCom submissions, etc.
> I'd make sure we'd have an agenda posted 30 days in advance an all 
> the materials necessary to make such decisions available for review 
> at least one week before the telecon.
> Thoughts?  Please provide your feedback by 23APR.  I'll summarize 
> the feedback and if the response is positive, I'd like us to 
> consider holding the first such meeting 1pm-3pm ET Friday 04JUN2010.
> Regards,
> --Paul
> ----------
> 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.