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

RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions




Bob,

I have a (non-legal) opinion on "the ability of LMSC or any of its 
WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules of Order in such a 
significant way".

If Robert's Rules were supreme, and if they demanded a majority as a 
quorum, then we would be in violation three times a year already. 
However:

(1) We don't run under Robert's Rules (though some WGs may choose 
to). The basic LMSC rules for WGs are not a subset of Robert's Rules; 
e.g.:

* "The Chair of the Working Group decides procedural issues."

* "The operation of the Working Group has to be balanced between 
democratic procedures that reflect the desires of the Working Group 
members and the Working Group Chair's responsibility to produce a 
standard, recommended practice, or guideline, in a reasonable amount 
of time."

(2) Robert's Rules do not demand a majority. Instead, they say, for example:

* "The quorum of any other deliberative assembly with an enrolled 
membership (unless the by-laws provide for a smaller quorum) is a 
majority of all the members."

* "In all ordinary societies the by-laws should provide for a quorum 
as large as can be depended upon for being present at all meetings 
when the weather is not exceptionally bad."

* "It has been found impracticable to accomplish the work of most 
voluntary societies if no business can be transacted unless a 
majority of the members is present. In large organizations, meeting 
weekly or monthly for one or two hours, it is the exception when a 
majority of the members is present at a meeting, and therefore it has 
been found necessary to require the presence of only a small 
percentage of the members to enable the assembly to act for the 
organization, or, in other words, to establish a small quorum."

Roger


>I have to jump in here, too.  I have very strong feelings about the quorum
>issue.  It is not just about making progress versus having to wait for 802
>plenary cycles.  It is about meeting (at least in part) the "open and
>public" standards development process that helps to keep the IEEE and LMSC
>out of anti-trust hot water.  Before we expend too many more minutes on
>this, I would like to have a legal opinion from the IEEE legal staff as to
>the ability of LMSC or any of its WGs or TAGs to depart from Robert's Rules
>of Order is such a significant way.
>
>I am completely against reducing the quorum requirement.  Our process is all
>about achieving consensus.  Allowing a group to make what can be significant
>decisions with much less than half the voting membership participating is a
>road to longer, not shorter periods for developing positions and standards,
>in my opinion.
>
>  -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 12:04 PM
>To: carlstevenson@agere.com; mjsherman@research.att.com; r.b.marks@ieee.org;
>stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
>Carl,
>
>Assuming the proposal includes a quorum requirement and is
>specific to RR-TAG (or 802 makes a decision when a TAG is
>created on whether they use that rule), then it seems
>a reasonable proposal.
>
>TAGs can be created for many purposes and not all of those
>purposes have the need that RR-TAG does for fast turn around
>of unexpected (or uncontrollable) events. Some might also
>not have the size and regular participants to make this work.
>I think this rule should only apply where that special need exists.
>(If one thinks that need is not necessary to justify the rule,
>then 802.1 would certainly meet "modest size group of regular
>participants so why would it be a TAG rule?)
>
>A quorum rule helps ensure that the chair makes a reasonable
>attempt to schedule the meeting and get notice out well enough
>that people had the ability to attend. (When we add it to
>the rules it will apply to chairs after you so trusting your
>judgement alone is not enough. Also, having reasonable safeguards
>in the rules helps protect the TAG Chair and 802 SEC against
>accusations of mis-use if a controversy arises.)
>
>Regards,
>Pat
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [mailto:carlstevenson@agere.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:24 AM
>To: 'Matthew Sherman'; 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>
>
>
>I also like Roger's suggestion ... in fact, it
>is pretty much precicely where I hoped that this
>discussion on WG meeting quorums would go when I
>made my intial comments.
>
>As a "sidebar," I would comment is that, for the 802.18
>RR-TAG, I am intending to propose the ability (through
>a TAG rules change proposal at the July SEC meeting),
>for teleconference meetings to be held when required
>(with reasonable notice, noting that I expect the RR-TAG
>to be a modest sized group of regular participants for
>the most part).
>
>The reason for this is simple:
>The Radio Regulatory environment is sometimes quite
>dynamic, relative to even 2 month meeting cycles, and
>I can't ask the FCC for an extension of time on comment
>periods too frequently, or I will "wear out my welcome."
>(Had I not gotten the extension of time, we would not
>have been able to respond by the original filing deadline
>to the ARRL's Petiton for Reconsideration ...)
>
>I would hasten to point out 2 things:
>
>1) I don't have a burning desire to make more work
>for myself and others by calling such teleconference
>meetings unless they are necessary to respond to
>regulatory proceedings in a timely manner.
>
>and
>
>2) As was the case a week or so ago, the output
>document will be subject to a vote of the SEC
>to become an "IEEE 802 position" ... and an 802.18
>Position statement would be subject to a minimum
>of a 5 day review by the SEC, according to LMSC rules.
>
>
>Carl
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Matthew Sherman [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
>>  Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:51 AM
>>  To: 'Roger B. Marks'; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>
>>
>>
>>  Roger,
>>
>>  I like what you suggest.
>>
>>  Mat
>>
>>  Matthew Sherman
>>  Technology Consultant
>>  Communications Technology Research
>>  AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
>>  Room B255, Building 103
>>  180 Park Avenue
>>  P.O. Box 971
>>  Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
>>  Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
>>  Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
>>  EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>>
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>  Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:25 AM
>>  To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>
>>
>>
>>  I agree with Carl. In 802.16, our sessions are similar whether or not
>>  the SEC is meeting the same week. The agenda is basically the same,
>>  and the turnout is similar. Over the last eight sessions at 802
>>  plenaries, we averaged 119 participants; for our last eight interims,
>>  the average was 104. ["Participants" are those who met the "75%
>>  presence" test.]
>>
>>  It's important to remember _why_ we treat a Working Group meeting
>>  differently depending on whether or not the SEC meets in conjunction
>>  with it. The rules gives us the answer explicitly: "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."
>>
>>  802.16 meets every two months according to schedule, with the "time
>>  and place is established well in advance." It's to meet this type of
>>  schedule that I am suggesting that we change the rules to apply the
>>  same advance-notice test to _all_ WG meetings, regardless of whether
>>  or not they are in conjunction with an LMSC plenary.
>>
>>  Also, in special cases, interim meetings may crop up without much
>>  advance notice. We ought to have a rule to cover them too.
>>
>>  Here is a new version of my proposed rules change. I have tried to
>>  incorporate the concerns I have heard on the reflector:
>>
>>  "No quorum is required at meetings held in conjunction with an LMSC
>>  Plenary session since the Plenary session date and location are
>>  established well in advance. The same is true of other Working Group
>>  sessions whose date and location are announced at least three months
>  > in advance. Work may also be conducted at interim Working Group
>>  sessions whose program of work, date, and location are authorized,
>>  with at least 75% approval, in a Working Group vote or letter ballot
>>  at least thirty days in advance. This authorization may also include
>>  the empowerment of the interim session to act without a quorum on
>>  specific issues, such as forwarding a draft to Working Group Letter
>>  Ballot."
>>
>>  Roger
>>
>>
>>  At 9:25 AM -0400 02/06/06, Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) wrote:
>>  >SEC Colleagues,
>>  >
>>  >I tend to be of the view that the distinction
>>  >between interims and plenaries has become somewhat
>>  >artificial and outdated as far as WGs go ...
>>  >
>>  >Yes, attendance is higher at plenaries ... but,
>>  >at least in the wireless WGs, attendance at
>>  >interims is substantial. The people who are
>>  >dedicated to advancing the work (and who are
>>  >doing the bulk of it) are the ones who take the
>>  >time and expend the money and effort to attend
>>  >the interims.
>>  >
>>  >I am inclined to believe that those who are
>>  >really doing the bulk of the work should not
>>  >be held back by those who are not dedicated
>>  >enough to attend the interims.
>>  >
>>  >I think there should be a way to allow work to
>>  >progress at interims, even if attendance is somewhat
>>  >short of a quorum (based on total voters), based on
>>  >the concept I've outlined above ... that those who
>>  >are doing the bulk of the work should not be held back
>>  >by those who are not the real "worker bees"
>>  >(and ultimately frustrated ... something I've seen
>>  >of late when this issue has prevented progress)?
>>  >
>>  >I haven't formulated an actual proposal on how to
>>  >accomplish this, but simply want to try to stimulate
>>  >some thought and discussion in this direction.
>>  >
>>  >Regards,
>>  >Carl
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  From: pat_thaler@agilent.com [mailto:pat_thaler@agilent.com]
>>  >>  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:45 PM
>>  >>  To: billq@attglobal.net; pat_thaler@agilent.com
>>  >>  Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  >>  Subject: RE: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  Bill,
>>  >>
>>  >>  I agree, though the concept of binding ballots is a bit difficult.
>>  >>  I believe they could authorize a non-Plenary meeting to do the
>>  >>  sort of things authorized for a task force meeting - e.g. work
>>  >>  on ballot comment resolution, prepare a draft for recirculation
>>  >>  ballot - things that are reversable at the plenary and material
>>  >>  being prepared for working group letter ballots. If they couldn't
>>  >>  hold this kind of meeting, one couldn't hold a task force meeting.
>>  >  >
>>  >>  The hard part is for a chair to draw the line on what can be
>>  >>  done at an interim and what can't. We have been doing it in
>>  >>  802.3 for task force meetings for years, are fairly conservative
>>  >>  on how much rope we give a task force and have a pretty good
>>  >>  feel from experience on where the boundaries are, but it is hard
>>  >>  to transfer judgement.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Pat
>>  >>
>>  >>  -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
>>  >>  Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:15 PM
>>  >>  To: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)
>>  >>  Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  >>  Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>  Pat,
>>  >>
>>  >>  I was trying to comment on the legality under the current
>>  >  > LMSC rules of
>>  >  > the practice of a WG voting to authorize a non-Plenary
>>  >  > meeting of the WG
>>  >  > to conduct binding ballots without a quorum.
>>  >  >
>>  >  > I was not trying to comment on the proposed rule change.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Thanks,
>>  >>
>>  >>  wlq
>>  >>
>>  >>  "THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1)" wrote:
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Bill,
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I am confused by your message. The discussion is about
>>  >>  changing 802 quorum
>>  >>  > requirements rather than about overriding 802 quorum
>>  requirements.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Pat
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
>>  >>  > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:15 PM
>  > >>  > To: pat_thaler@agilent.com
>>  >>  > Cc: r.b.marks@ieee.org; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  >>  > Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > All,
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > The question of a WG meeting without a quorum and that does
>>  >>  not occur
>>  >>  > during an 802 Plenary week being able to pass motions is
>>  >>  currently dealt
>>  >>  > with I believe by the combination of Sections 5.1.4.2.1
>>  and 5.1.4.6.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > 5.1.4.2.1 states that a WG quorum must be present at
>>  such a meeting.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > 5.1.4.6 states that the LMSC rules take precedence of WG rules.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > As a result, a WG may not override the quorum
>>  requirement for a WG
>>  >>  > meeting that does not occur during an 802 Plenary week as
>>  >>  that would be
>>  >>  > in conflict with the LMSC rules which take precedence.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > wlq
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Dear Roger,
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I think that the amount of advance time before the
>>  meeting is less
>>  >>  > > important than the meeting (and its range of business) being
>>  >>  > > approved by the working group.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > If a Working Group can authorize a committee (which
>>  we often call
>>  >>  > > a task force) to conduct business between plenaries,
>>  then it can
>>  >>  > > authorize a "committee of the whole" to do the same
>>  thing. When
>>  >>  > > we do that for the task force (or a study group), the charter
>>  >>  > > of work they can do is fairly clear - bounded by a PAR (or to
>>  >>  > > develop a PAR). Any decisions made to alter that charter (e.g.
>>  >>  > > changing the objectives for the PAR) are subject to review
>>  >>  > > and approval or rejection during the working group session
>>  >>  > > at the plenary (or at an interim with a quorum). If a Working
>>  >>  > > Group is going to do something similar then I believe
>>  it should
>>  >>  > > similarly bound the scope when authorizing the meeting.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >  > > > I would alter the your text to
>>  >>  > > "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. Work may be conducted at
>>  >>  interim Working
>>  >  > > > Group sessions whose program of work, date and location
>>  >>  are agreed to
>>  >>  > > by vote at a plenary at least one month in advance of
>>  the meeting.
>>  >>  > > Technical decisions made without a quorum at such interims are
>>  >>  > > subject to review and modification at the plenary unless the
>>  >>  > > Working Group has preauthorized a decision such as forwarding
>>  >  > > > to Working Group ballot."
>>  >  > > >
>>  >>  > > Pat
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  > > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
>>  >>  > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:31 AM
>>  >>  > > To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
>>  >>  > > Subject: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Dear SEC,
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I think that we should think about revising the 802 rules
>>  >>  to clarify
>>  >>  > > the quorum situation for WG Interim Sessions. I think
>>  >  > that WGs need
>>  >>  > > to know how to take actions that won't be later called
>>  >>  into question
>>  >>  > > on quorum grounds. The extra uncertainty isn't good
>>  for anyone.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I think we have too many continuing question marks on
>>  this issue.
>>  >>  > > Some WGs have no Interim Sessions, though their Task
>>  >>  Forces do meet.
>>  >>  > > In other cases, Interim WG meetings are held between all LMSC
>>  >>  > > Plenaries.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Also, some WG's will arrange for a vote, at the WG Plenary, to
>>  >>  > > authorize a WG to meet and transact business, with
>>  our without a
>>  >>  > > quorum, at an upcoming Interim. My understanding has
>>  been that not
>>  >>  > > all SEC members accept the legitimacy of this practice.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > We also face questions of what to in the absence of a
>>  >>  quorum. Some go
>>  >>  > > by Robert, who says "The only business that can be
>>  >>  transacted in the
>>  >>  > > absence of a quorum is to take measures to obtain a
>  > quorum, to fix
>>  >>  > > the time to which to adjourn, and to adjourn, or to take
>>  >>  a recess."
>>  >>  > > Others are more liberal, to varying degrees.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Then we have the question of when the quorum applies.
>>  >>  Does the Chair
>>  >>  > > need to check for it? Is it assumed, unless a quorum
>>  call arises?
>>  >>  > > What if no quorum call arises and someone later, after
>>  >>  the session,
>>  >>  > > challenges the presence of a quorum? Does a quorum at any
>>  >>  point in a
>>  >>  > > session, or in a meeting, suffice to cover the entire session?
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I'd like to think about a rules change to resolve the
>>  >>  problem. First,
>>  >>  > > however, I'd like to probe where people stand on this
>>  issue to see
>>  >>  > > what kind of rules change would be likely to pass.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > To get things started, here is what I would propose. In
>>  >>  5.1.4.2.1, I
>>  >>  > > would change:
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > "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."
>>  >  > > >
>>  >>  > > to:
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > "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. The same is true of other
>>  >>  Working Group
>>  >>  > > sessions whose date and location are announced at least
>>  >>  three months
>>  >>  > > in advance. In other cases, Working Groups are authorized
>>  >>  to meet and
>>  >>  > > transact business. However, no technical vote at such
>>  a meeting is
>>  >>  > > valid unless quorum is established immediately
>>  before, after, or
>>  >>  > > during the vote, or unless Working Group action without a
>>  >>  quorum has
>>  >>  > > been previously authorized by the Working Group."
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Could you support a change like this?
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I'm personally open to other ideas, but I would like an
>>  >>  unambiguous
>>  >>  > > LMSC policy.
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Thanks,
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > Roger
>>  >>
>>