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

Re: [802SEC] Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:26:18 -0700




Bob -

Not at all...according to 5.1.2 of the P&P, the correct time to conduct 
Chair elections is at a Plenary session.

Regards,
Tony

At 12:26 09/04/2003 -0400, Bob O'Hara wrote:

>Tony,
>
>It also seems clear that if Mark wants to adopt that interpretation, he
>also failed to hold WG elections.  That could be argued to be evidence
>that he does not have sufficient experience with LMSC P&P to hold the
>chair position, as would the publishing of the "procedures" that would
>be used at the March session (second session) of 802.20 for establishing
>initial membership, in contravention of the LMSC P&P.
>
>So, it seems that we are being asked to consider both of those meetings
>to be the "first" meeting, depending on when we look and for what
>purpose.
>
>I believe that we need a decision from the LMSC chair, indicating when
>the first session of 802.20 was held, when initial membership was
>established, and who attained membership at the initial session.
>
>For Mark, do you have an attendance roster that shows exactly which
>meetings of the January session each person attended?
>
>  -Bob
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:49 AM
>To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org; Mark Klerer
>Subject: Re: FW: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
>
>
>
>Mark -
>
>Seems clear to me that, if the January meeting was indeed the first duly
>
>constituted meeting of the 802.20 WG, then attendance at that meeting
>should be taken into account under the "retention" rule. However, surely
>
>the "establishment" rule (first line of 5.1.3.1), by the same argument,
>should have been applied in January, and not in March.
>
>Regards,
>Tony.
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Mark Klerer [mailto:M.Klerer@flarion.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 10:25 PM
> >To: 'Bob O'Hara '; Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); 'paul.nikolich@att.net'
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >Bob, Mat and Paul
> >
> >Bob you do raise an interesting prospect by stating that you are
> >"willing to
> >disenfranchise those members that can be shown not to have attended the
> >requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING
>GROUP."
> >You
> >state that this cannot be done since there were no previous sesions.
> >Well,
> >actually that is not correct. The WORKING GROUP had a "duly constituted
> >interim Working Group session" January 13-16, 2003. So it now actually
> >becomes a trivial exercise to identify those who have not "attended the
> >requisite number of meetings at previous sessions of the WORKING
>GROUP."
> >All
> >one needs to do is look at the attendance roster of the January meeting
> >on
> >the website and compare that to the March session. There were some 60+
> >attendees in January including some who attended for the first time,
> >i.e.
> >were not participants in the SG.
> >
> >I would also point that the the Operating Rules do not require the
>first
> >session (though it says meeting) to be at a plenary. The Op Rules also
> >allow
> >substitution of a duly constituted interim meeting for the meetings of
>a
> >pleanry session. So this approach would be entirley within the realm of
> >interpretation of the Op rules.
> >
> >So I for one am willing to go with such an interpretation.
> >
> >Mark Klerer
> >
> >
> >Mat: I would appreciate you forwarding this to the SEC mailing list.
> >Thanks
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bob O'Hara
> >To: mjsherman@research.att.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Sent: 4/3/03 11:03 AM
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >My opinion is that the interpretation of the rules published by the
> >chair of the SG appointed by Paul and affirmed by the SEC, one who
> >presumably has sufficient experience in the workings of the LMSC and
>the
> >P&P to hold the position, is valid and has granted membership to those
> >that were present for 75% of the meetings of the March session.  I
>don't
> >agree with the chair's interpretation and consider it unduly
> >restrictive, given the actual language of the rule.  But, that was what
> >was published to the study group and copies provided to the SEC chair
> >and other members of the SEC.
> >
> >However, I am willing to disenfranchise those members that can be shown
> >not to have attended the requisite number of meetings at previous
> >sessions of the WORKING GROUP.  Given that such evidence cannot be
> >produced, because there were no previous meetings of the working group,
> >any interpretation of the P&P membership retention rule that would
> >disenfranchise those members is clearly absurd.  Just as some might say
> >that the members attended no previous sessions of the WG.  I can say
> >that those same members attended ALL previous sessions of the WG.
> >
> >Those that were present when the existing rules were crafted have
> >clearly indicated that the rules are intended to grant immediate
> >membership, so that the WG can begin conducting official business at
>its
> >first meeting (not session).  Any interpretation of the retention rule
> >that immediately removes that membership is also clearly absurd, since
> >the WG can no longer continue to conduct business, not even at the
> >second meeting of the first session.
> >
> >So, we have gotten ourselves into this fine mess and Mat has asked us
>to
> >use a procedure form Robert's Rules to interpret the P&P to get
> >ourselves out of it.  Robert's says that the interpretation should be
>in
> >accordance with the intention at the time the rule was written.  I have
> >seen nothing to contrary to the statements made that membership was
> >immediate and necessary to begin conducting business.
> >
> >In my opinion, it is not the initial membership rule that is ambiguous,
> >but the retention rule, which does not account for the startup
> >conditions of the working group.
> >
> >  -Bob
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:35 PM
> >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >Hi Everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> >So far, I haven't seen a lot of comment on my suggestion that we
> >interpret the rules.  The email trail to date is given below.  To
> >summarize what I have heard so far (based on the e-mail trail):
> >
> >
> >
> >1)     At least some of us believe that membership based on SG
> >attendance was originally discussed by 802 and intentionally avoided in
> >the current rules
> >
> >2)     Al least some of us believe that the intent of the current rules
> >was indeed to give anyone present at the initial meeting voting rights
> >under the assumption they would continue to attend
> >
> >3)     At least some of us believe that "meeting" really meant
> >"meeting", not "session" in the current new WG membership rules
> >
> >4)     At least some of up believe the chair of a new WG should have
>the
> >discretion to interpret "meeting" as "session" since participation is
> >only defined per session (currently)
> >
> >
> >
> >In addition I have seen some side traffic concerning other process
> >issues relevant to the upcoming 802.20 elections.  However, the focus
>of
> >my interpretation request is really on whether or not the membership in
> >802.20 is valid, not on the election process itself.  I encourage
>others
> >to start dealing with that topic if they feel it is an issue.  Based on
> >the comments to date, I would have to say that the rule in error is the
> >one that determines membership retention.  Based on that my recommended
> >interpretation would be to interpret section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention"
> >to read:
> >
> >
> >
> >             "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
>of
> >the last four Plenary session meetings.  One duly constituted interim
> >Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
> >two Plenary meetings. (In the case of a new working group with less
>than
> >4 meetings, it is assumed that the 4 plenary sessions prior to the
> >formation of the group were attended by the new WG members when
> >determining if membership is retained.)"
> >
> >
> >
> >I want to clearly establish before the interim what the membership
> >status of 802.20 members will be for that meeting.  This interpretation
> >would enforce that membership in that WG is maintained until it can
> >unambiguously be demonstrated that the retention requirements were not
> >met.  If anyone objects to this interpretation please state so, and why
> >they believe so.  I want to have a full 30 day ballot on an
> >interpretation and I want to make sure I get it right before I put it
> >forward.  That is why I am trying to get inputs now.  Please tell me
> >what you think.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman
> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
> >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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:42 PM
> >To: Grow, Bob; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >Bob,  I agree completely.  The practice in the past has been to grant
> >voting rights based only on attendance at the first official meeting of
> >the first plenary session.  But since our rules only refer to
> >"participation" in the first session, I am willing to allow the WG
>chair
> >to define exactly what is meant by participation.  In this case however
> >where you only have a temporary chair who may have a stake in the
> >outcome of the voting this may very well become the minefield to which
> >you refer.  Already there has been quite a bit of dickering over what
> >constitutes valid participation.  That's why I think we need a re-run
> >with the rules clearly spelled out in advance, so that everyone has a
> >fair chance to participate.  Let's hope Geoff can bring his usual
> >measure of sanity to the process.   :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanx,  Buzz
> >Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >Boeing - SSG
> >PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> >(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
> >everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> >Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:05 AM
> >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >Buzz may be the longest term SEC member, but I think I have a slightly
> >different long term perspective as having been in the 802 trenches the
> >longest of any SEC member.  Since 1981 I have participated in (and I
> >think had voting rights on):  802.2 (as an 802 voter), 802.3, 802.4
> >(when it was part of the Token DLMAC), 802.5, 802.6, 802.9 and 802.11.
> >I have had membership in two working groups at the same time.  I have
> >been involved in the organization of Working Group(s) (802.5 when 802
> >got dots, and either one or both of 802.6 and 802.9) becoming a member
> >at an initial meeting.  My recollection is that received member rights
> >at an organizational meeting, independent of session attendance during
> >the plenary week.  While long term historical perspective is
> >enlightening, it may also be a mine field.
> >
> >
> >
> >--Bob Grow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:53 PM
> >To: everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >Buzz,
> >
> >
> >
> >Much appreciated, and very enlightening!
> >
> >
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman
> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
> >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: Rigsbee, Everett O [mailto:everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:46 PM
> >To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: RE: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >Colleagues,    Matt Sherman has raised some good points for us to
> >consider.
> >
> >
> >
> >As our now longest-term member of the SEC, I believe I can speak to the
> >intention of the current rules based on prior discussions going back to
> >when the rules were created.  The intention behind section 5.1.3.1 was
> >that all attendees who participated in the first official plenary
> >meeting would be automatically granted full voting rights (membership)
> >on a grandfathered basis (as though they had attended the two prior
> >plenaries) so that there would be a pool of eligible members (voters)
>to
> >allow for quorum establishment and transaction of committee business.
> >Otherwise a new working group would be unable to transact any business
> >for two meetings, something that was deemed unacceptable.  There was
> >consideration given to having a participation requirement based on the
> >preliminary activities of an initial Study Group, but my recollection
>is
> >that study groups were viewed as possibly transitory and unstable
> >entities, which were subject to changes and might not be fully attended
> >by the major players until such time as a PAR was officially approved.
> >So the intention was that the fairest basis was to allow everyone who
> >was willing to commit to active participation at the first official
> >meeting should be treated as equal participants and granted full
> >membership.
> >
> >
> >
> >Every new Working Group and TAG that has come aboard has had this same
> >basic rule, so it has worked fairly well.  However this is the very
> >first instance that I'm aware of, in which all of the officers elected
> >had not been participants of the prior Study group which created the
> >PAR.  With the exception of Peter Tarrant, who led the Hi-Speed LAN
> >Study Group that ultimately morphed into 100BASE-T and 802.12, the
> >person who was chair of the Study Group has always been elected to
>Chair
> >the Working Group or TAG.  There was some serious controversy about
>that
> >particular dynamic as well.
> >
> >
> >
> >I personally believe that the correct course for us will be to maintain
> >the voters list from the Dallas meeting and run a roll call election at
> >the July plenary.  Anyone who qualified as a voter in Dallas should be
> >entitled to vote in SF whether they attend the interim or not.  Once
>the
> >outcome is officially recorded, the SEC can address any remaining
>issues
> >of block voting based on the data, rather than on a lot of hearsay and
> >opinion.  At least there is some opportunity in the meantime to find
> >some compromise solutions which may allow the problem to solve itself.
> >Time heals all wounds.    :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanx,  Buzz
> >Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> >Boeing - SSG
> >PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> >Seattle, WA  98124-2207
> >(425) 865-2443    Fx: (425) 865-6721
> >everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 6:14 PM
> >To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> >Subject: [802SEC] WG Initial membership interpretation
> >
> >
> >
> >Gentle-folks:
> >
> >
> >
> >I wish to call to your attention to a particular section of Robert's
> >Rules.  That section is the following from Article IX of Robert's Rules
> >(10th edition):
> >
> >
> >
> >             "If a bylaw is ambiguous, it must be interpreted, if
> >possible, in harmony with other bylaws.  The interpretations should be
> >in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw
> >was adopted, as far as this can be determined.  Again, intent plays no
> >role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain, but where an ambiguity
> >exists, a majority vote is all that is required to decide the question.
> >The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as
> >practicable."
> >
> >
> >
> >I am of the opinion that our "bylaws" (the LMSC P&P) are in fact
> >"ambiguous or doubtful" regarding the process of obtaining membership
>at
> >the start up of a working group.  In particular we have from section
> >5.1.3.1 titled "Establishment":
> >
> >
> >
> >             "All persons participating in the initial meeting of the
> >Working Group become members of the Working Group."
> >
> >
> >
> >On the other hand we have from section 5.1.3.2 titled "Retention":
> >
> >
> >
> >             "Membership is retained by participating in at least two
>of
> >the last four Plenary session meetings.  One duly constituted interim
> >Working Group or task group meeting may be substituted for one of the
> >two Plenary meetings."
> >
> >
> >
> >As was so well explained by Tony (thank you for the excellent analysis)
> >in an earlier e-mail, these two rules clearly seem to be at odds with
> >one another.  Setting aside for a moment the question of whether or not
> >we intended "meeting" or "session" in section 5.1.3.1 (a topic for yet
> >another interpretation) these two rules seem to conflict with one
> >another.  Even taking the liberal view that meeting means session,
>after
> >the first session the general rules would kick in and all "members"
> >would seem to lose their membership in the WG.
> >
> >
> >
> >All this said, we already have a P&P change ballot which should "fix"
> >this problem by the end of the July meeting.  My concern is for the
> >beginning of the July meeting.  Given what happened in March to 802.20,
> >I would like to have a clearer interpretation of these "bylaws" so that
> >we don't have a repeat of the last meeting.  As indicated by Robert's
> >Rules, an interpretation can be established by majority vote.  I
>believe
> >a motion could be put forward and then approved electronically prior to
> >the July meeting.  But before I do that, I wanted to open this issue
>for
> >debate prior to making any motions so that I can make sure I make the
> >right motion (or perhaps chose not to make a motion at all).
> >
> >
> >
> >Any comments on this topic?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> >Mat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Matthew Sherman
> >Vice Chair, IEEE 802
> >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
> >
> >
>
>Regards,
>Tony

Regards,
Tony