|
Hi
All,
Let's
make sure that we allow enough time for debate so that the salient points can be
made. Most speakers comments are brief and to the point, so I don't
think we have engaged in filibustering.. On some topics there are quite a
few comments to be made so the time required far exceeds 10-15 minutes.
Why not give each speaker only so much (total?) time; when that time expires
they can make no further comments.
Joseph
Cleveland
Greetings,
I
understand that there is a desire to have a full discussion of topics.
However, in most cases
the
salient points in a debate become evident very quickly and continued
discussion brings in
little new information and only delays
progress. While the working group should not be run like
a
television talk show, we should not allow
for "Senate-like" filibusters that can occur when
there
are
no rules that limit debate. Since at the end of a
debate there is an option to remand the topic
to
an ad hoc group, I don't see that limiting debate in the plenary session
limits the ability of the
working group to reach a consensus (>75%)
agreement. Certainly, we can balance these
competing
objectives and operate in a manner
that will ensure that we complete the Requirements
Document
at
this meeting.
Also, one benefit of setting a time limit on the
length of interventions and on the overall
debate is
that
it encourages each speaker to be
succinct. Enough said.
Best
regards,
Joanne
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-mobility@listserv.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gal, Dan
(Dan)
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:36 AM
To:
STDS-802-MOBILITY@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Process to be Used
for Resolving Comments on the Requirements
Document
Bob,
I
support Joseph's view and suggestion. Our meetings should not be run like a
television talk-show with rigid start and end times. The IEEE rules and
procedures encourage open and free discussions. Your suggestions seriously
impede the free discussion and debate. Joseph has made a wise suggestion -
to limit the time allowed for each speaker (to a reasonable amount) and
not limit the overall time needed for discussion of any topic
- and we should all follow it.
Regards,
Dan
Hi All,
Let me respond to Joseph's comments with two
points.
1) We need to discuss how to proceed
effectively. Perhaps there is a better way.
2) I am proposing what I have seen work very
effectively in 802.17. One of the things that we did when we limited
discussion was to limit each person to a single question, without back and
forth dialogue between the speaker and the questioner. This allowed
many people to get their important points in. What we found by
implementing this process was that we eliminated the overly long
discussions that weren't leading to resolution, and thereby ended up with
more time to cover issues that we could close on. Certainly, in the
early part of the cycle there will be issues we won't close on during the
meeting. Those issues are generally not moved forward by protracted
discussion in front of the whole group. The short discussion period
allows the interested parties to see who is on what sides of the issue, so
that they can get together off-line to bring their viewpoints closer in
alignment. The process is not smooth or perfect, but it has lead to
significantly more progress than open unlimited debate.
Let's discuss the process to follow that will
enable us to get through our agenda in our limited time at the meeting, at
the beginning of the Requirements Document review.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love President, LAN Connect Consultants 7105 Leveret
Circle Raleigh, NC 27615 Phone: 919
848-6773 Mobile: 919
810-7816 email: rdlove@ieee.org
Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:52
AM
Subject: Re: Process to be Used for
Resolving Comments on the Requirements Document
Hi All,
I am opposed to any attempt to limit discussion
on any item to 10-15 minutes. If we have 10 people queued up to
speak on an matter, then they all should be allowed to comment.
Otherwise, only 2-3 might have an opportunity. Limiting the time
is a sure way to get an item voted down.
We might want to consider limiting an
individuals time (as in the US House of Representatives), but not the
total time.
Joseph Cleveland
Based on the last Requirements CG
Conference call on 3/4/04 we decided that we should be going into
the meeting understanding the process for resolving comments and for
establishing our Approved Requirements Document Draft. (It is a
draft because it is not final. It is approved, because the text
in that document has been approved by 75% of the voting
members). I volunteered to write up a process that I
successfully used in 802.17 to expedite the process of developing our
Approved Requirements Document Draft. Attached is that
process. John Humbert, Todd Chauvin, and Joseph Cleveland have
already reviewed it. They
still have some concerns and I invite you to express yours. However, this should be close
the process that John Humbert will be using to develop the WG Approved
draft of the requirements document next week, unless there are
requested changes in the process that get adopted.
Please
study the process. If you have concerns or recommended changes
with the process, please post your concerns to the 802.20
reflector. At the beginning of the review of the requirements
document we will have a motion to accept this process for issue
resolution.
The
Requirement document will be reviewed one section at a time.
John Humbert will run the sessions. A second person will "drive
the projector" showing the requirements document and making any
changes that the WG wants. A third person will "drive a second
projector" for showing motions for approving sections of the
requirements document.
For
each section, presentations will be given based on presentations
posted to our web site as contributions for this meeting, and based on
Ad Hoc work done either at night or during breaks to resolve
issues.
A
presentation of the section led by the editor will end with one or
more recommendations as to what that section should say. Each
recommendation should have a mover and a seconder. The
recommendations will be shown on the screen being run by the person
displaying the motions
A
time-limited discussion will ensue (probably 10 to 15 minutes).
During that time additional proposed resolutions may be developed, and
friendly amendments may be made. Non-friendly amendments can be
presented as alternative solutions. When either the allotted
time runs out or there is no more discussion, the working group will
vote on the motions. Voting members may vote for as many
solutions as they are willing to support (sometimes called
Chicago-style voting, i.e. vote early, vote often). If no
motions get 75% approval then there will be a motion asking if the
group believes that we need to work further on this section to include
technical requirements here. If this motion fails to gain 75%
approval, then the section is dropped from the requirements
document. If it passes, the section title remains and the editor
is charged with bringing this section back to an AdHoc group, or to
the CG for further consideration. If a single motion gets 75%
approval, that resolution gets incorporated into the Approved
Requirements Document Draft. If multiple resolutions get 75%
approval, there is a second vote and the proposal getting the most
votes is incorporated into the Approved Requirements Documents
Draft. Since all the choices being voted on already have 75%
approval, the selection from among the choices need only get a
plurality greater than the other choices to be
adopted.
After
all sections have been reviewed and voted on the Document Editor will
present his recommendations for how to
proceed
NOTE TO ALL
INTERESTED: If you have specific ideas as to the best wording
for a section, please develop the exact wording you want and have it
available at the earliest possible opportunity. With the wording
in hand, it will be relatively easy to get those words where they can
be studied and voted on.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
President, LAN Connect
Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC
27615
Phone: 919 848-6773
Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@ieee.org
Fax: 208
978-1187
|