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

RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WGme mbership

I like everything you said except the suggestion that voting rights be granted at the end of the second meeting. Today they are granted when one attends a third meeting having attended (at least 75%) 2 previous meetings.

There are two reasons I have a problem with that suggestion - 
A group is working in an area that attracts a lot of interest, there are a lot of people who attend two meetings and never go to a third meeting. When I was 802.3 chair, I began preparing a list ahead of time of people who would qualify to be a voter if they attended that meeting. I continued the practice in 802.12 and 802.3 has continued the process so we have over 10 years of experience with it. Rarely do more than half of the people actually attend the third meeting and become voters. 

There can be massive numbers of people who have attended 2 meetings. In 802.3, the list three columns wide sometimes doesn't even fit on a single page. So changing getting voting rights at the start of the third meeting to the end of the second meeting would put dozens of people on the list who aren't intending to become long term participants.

People who attend three meetings are highly likely to become long term participants. That can't be said of people who attend two meetings.

If you change the rule about when voting rights are acquired to grant voting rights at the end of the second meeting, then you really would have trouble making quorums and closing ballots.

There is one other thing. When you said "interims" below I assume you meant working group interims and not task force interims. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Takefman []
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:31 PM
To: Tony Jeffree
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for
WGme mbership

My $0.02

In talking with some members of my group, there was a feeling that
a 4 month meeting cycle for losing membership (whether it is 
2 of 2 or 2 of 3) is a little too fast.

Our current rules allow membership as fast as 4 months if
people hit the right phase and 8 months if they are out of 

I agree with Tony on having equivalent rules for gain or 
loss. And the suggestion that has made the most sense to 
me up to this point is a window of 4 meetings, be they
plenary or *properly* announced interims. This makes the
window a consistent 6 months for those groups that 
meet every two months. If an interim is not properly
announced, then it cannot be used for loss, but I believe
it can be used for gaining rights. This rewards those
people who can make it to a meeting, but does not
penalize people who could not make it due to lack of

The algorithm is as follows. After a meeting has adjourned,
the chair looks backwards at attendance for a window of
4 meetings. With the closing meeting being the start
of the window.

Gaining rights: If a person has attended 2 meetings with
75% attendance at each, they are elligible for gaining
their voting rights if they so inform the chair. Their
voting rights start after the meeting hence they are 
elligible for any ballots that occur between the meeting 
that just ended and the next one.

Losing rights: If a person has not attended 2 meetings with
75% attendance at each, they lose their membership and their
voting rights end immediately after the meeting. As before
the discretion of the chair can be used to grant membership.

If you do the math, someone can maintain their rights by
coming to every second meeting, or by attending 2 meetings
then having a 2 meeting gap and attending on the 5th meeting.
This does allow someone to be on leave for up to 6 months
and return without losing their rights (of course they then have
to go to the two meetings in a row)

Comments ?


Michael Takefman    
Manager of Engineering,       Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
2000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399       fax: 613-254-4867