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 didn't take the time to analyze how many people are casual observers
exactly per Pat's definition, but I looked at something similar.  The part
of Mike's proposal I disagree with most is an observer automatically
becoming a member.   A quick review of 802.3 minutes indicates that on the
average less than 30% of those qualified to become a member at an 802.3
plenary meeting actually make the request to become a voting member.

From this I would strongly object to both requiring a WG to automatically
grant membership when attendance is met, and elimination of the eligibility
rule delaying the granting of voting privilege until the next meeting.  The
802.3 data follows (per 802 and 802.3 rules, a potential voter could remain
on the list for multiple meetings:
7/02   35 of 106 
3/02   41 of 130
11/01  27 of 137
7/01   46 of 154
3/01   37 of 109
Total 186 of 636 requested to become voting members.

--Bob Grow

-----Original Message-----
From: THALER,PAT (A-Roseville,ex1) []
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 3:20 PM
To: Tony Jeffree; Mike Takefman
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for
WGme mbership


You are correct about my intent. 

I disagree with you about the impact of the change to the rule on gaining
membership. There are very large numbers of casual attendees who attend two
802.3 meetings. Requiring attendence of three meetings to gain voting rights
filters out casual attendees. Granting voting rights for those who attend
just two meetings could make it difficult to close ballots or get quorums.

David Law could provide actual numbers, but I would say it isn't unusual for
802.3 to have 30 to 50 people per plenary cycle who have attended two
meetings but don't attend the third.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Jeffree []
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 1:48 PM
To: Mike Takefman
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for
WGme mbership

Mike -

There are 2 types of interims in current practice; 1) Those that are 
intended to be full WG meetings, which, if properly announced and quorate, 
can conduct any aspect of WG business; and 2) Those that are convened as 
Task Group or Task Force meetings, intended to advance the work on one or 
more projects within the work of the WG, but that are not empowered 
(whether quorate or not) to conduct other WG business.

Historically, the majority of 802.1 & 802.3 Interim meetings have been of 
type 2); in these meetings, anyone that can fog a mirror (to quote Howard) 
can vote, but any such votes are not binding on the Working Group, and 
would therefore require to be ratified at a subsequent Plenary. In other 
WGs, the majority of Interims are of type 1).

I believe it was Pat's intention (please correct me if I'm wrong, Pat) that 
the rule be based on 2 out of 4  Working Group meetings (i.e., Plenary 
meetings and Type 1 interim meetings), and that the current substitution 
rule would still apply for Type 2 interim meetings. This would mean that, 
if 802.1 or 802.3 continue their current practice, there would be exactly 
zero change in the effective membership rules for those groups. They could, 
of course, choose to vary their current practice, if they felt so moved, 
and constitute their interims as full WG meetings.

So, I think with the clarification that the 4 meeting window is based on 
duly constituted (plenary or interim) Working Group meetings, and that the 
substitution rule that currently states "One duly constituted interim 
Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the two 
Plenary meetings" would change to "One duly constituted interim task group 
meeting may be substituted for one of the two Working Group meetings", I 
think the algorithm below looks just fine.

I would note that your algorithm does imply an additional change from 
current rules - currently, once you satisfy the 2 out of 4 rule, you don't 
get to vote until the start of the next Plenary that you attend. What this 
further change loses in protection against giving voting rights to the more 
casual attendee, I think it gains in making the establishment & retention 
rules more symmetrical.


At 15:31 25/09/2002 -0400, Mike Takefman wrote:
>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