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




Curious.  Without wanting to even get close to a debate about whether
Section 2 or Section 4.2 is more relevant :-), at least the two sections
are consistent. 

Is the SAB proposal to change both sections (2 and 4.2) or just Section
2 (Precedence)?  If they change the precedence without changing section
4.2, things will get real interesting.

Any insight into the logic of this proposed change?

Thanks,

wlq

"Roger B. Marks" wrote:
> 
> Bob and Bill have correctly cited the CS SAB rules. However, I think
> they are about to change.
> 
> Jim Carlo had me attend a CS SAB meeting of 6 November 2001. There I
> learned that the order of precedence in the SAB P&P was considered
> broken. In my report to the SEC of 7 November
> <http://ieee802.org/secmail/msg01791.html>, I said:
> 
> "Jim Isaak led discussion of some changes to the Policies and
> Procedures... The SAB P&P mistakenly puts Sponsor Policies and
> Procedures below Robert's Rules of Order; this will be fixed."
> 
> I just called Jim Isaak to find out whatever happened to these rules
> changes. He said that they are behind schedule but that he has
> promised to start a 30-day ballot with the CS SAB within a few weeks.
> The changes include moving Robert's Rules to the bottom of the stack.
> Jim said that, in the SAB discussions, there has been no opposition
> to this change. He says we can expect the new rules to be in place
> within three months.
> 
> Part of the reason that the SAB is dropping Robert's Rules to the
> bottom is that the IEEE-SA wants it that way. For example, the
> IEEE-SA's "Model Operating Procedures for Sponsors for Standards
> Development" <http://standards.ieee.org/guides/sponsmod.html>
> recommend that Robert's Rules be last.
> 
> Roger
> 
> At 1:49 PM -0700 02/06/10, Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >Bill,
> >
> >I think that Section 2.0 has even more relevance to our discussion, as it
> >defines the precedence when there are conflicts between documents.
> >
> >2.0 PRECEDENCE
> >In the event of inconsistencies between two or more of the above documents,
> >the document with higher precedence (indicated by earlier appearance on the
> >following list) shall take precedence: [IEEE Standards Association
> >procedures are available at: http://standards.ieee.org/sitemap.html ]
> >
> >IEEE Bylaws
> >IEEE Standards Association Bylaws
> >IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual
> >IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
> >IEEE Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8
> >IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions
> >IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
> >IEEE CS Constitution and Bylaws
> >IEEE CS Policies and Procedures, Section 11
> >IEEE CS Board of Governors Resolutions
> >IEEE CS SAB P&P (this document)
> >Robert's Rules of Order
> >Sponsor Policies and Procedures
> >Working Group or Study Group Policies and Procedures
> >
> >As you can see, Robert's Rules have higher precedence than either our (LMSC)
> >rules or WG rules.
> >
> >  -Bob
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> >Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 12:44 PM
> >To: Bob O'Hara
> >Cc: 'Roger B. Marks'; 802sec (stds-802-sec@ieee.org)
> >Subject: Re: [802SEC] views on quorums at WG Interim Sessions
> >
> >
> >All,
> >
> >To emphasize Bob's points, Section 4.2 of the Computer Society Standards
> >Activity Board Policies and Procedures
> >(http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm) requires that all
> >standards making entities under the Computer Society operate under
> >Robert's Rules of Order.
> >
> >So the only option that we have is to use the flexibility that Robert's
> >Rules allows in some situations.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >wlq
> >
> >Bob O'Hara wrote:
> >>
> >>  Roger,
> >>
> >>  Interesting edit that you make in excerpting the LMSC operating rules
> >here:
> >>
> >>  * "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."
> >  >
> >  > The complete paragraph that you cite is:
> >  >
> >  > 5.1.4 Operation of the Working Group
> >  > 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.  Roberts Rules of Order shall be used in combination with
> >>  these operating rules to achieve this balance.
> >>
> >>  Please note the use of the word "shall" in the last sentence.  The WG
> >chair
> >>  does not have the choice as to which parts of Robert's Rules they wish to
> >be
> >  > applied to their WG.
> >  >
> >  > You also quote the operational portion of Robert's Rules that apply to the
> >  > WGs, according to our present rules:
> >>
> >>  * "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 the Standards Association Operations Manual, describing the operation
> >of
> >>  the SA BOG:
> >>
> >>  4.3 Transaction of business
> >>  Except as specified in the IEEE Standards Association Bylaws and this
> >>  manual, meetings will be conducted in accordance with the latest edition
> >of
> >>  Robert's Rules of Order.
> >>
> >>  In the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, section 5.1 Transaction of Business
> >>  (in part):
> >>
> >>  Approval of proposed IEEE standards, or proposed withdrawal of such
> >>  standards, shall require affirmative votes by at least 75% of members
> >>  voting. Except as otherwise specified in these bylaws, meetings of the
> >  > IEEE-SA Standards Board shall be run in accordance with the parliamentary
> >>  procedures of Robert's Rules of Order (latest edition).
> >>
> >>  My point is that there is an awful lot of precedent for not modifying
> >>  Robert's Rules, except where necessary to accomplish the purposes of the
> >>  body.  Given that LMSC and its WGs have been successfully producing
> >>  standards for quite some time now, without relief from the default quorum
> >>  specified in Robert's Rules, I find it very difficult to justify that we
> >>  need such relief, now.
> >>
> >>   -Bob
> >>
> >>
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> >>  Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:16 PM
> >>  To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >>  Subject: 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 o ne 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 meet ing
> >  > >>  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 buiness 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
> >>  >>  >>
> >>  >>
> >s
>