RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
Yes, we do agree on the steps. I didn't realize that your step 1 was the meeting where the SEC authorizes sending the PAR to NesCom.
On quorum, we do have a rule about quorum at Working Group interims. We have perhaps fudged it a bit when the first WG meeting is an interim, but the rule is still there. Also, my recollection is that the higher level policies have statements about quorum which apply when sponsors don't state a quorum requirement. Therefore, it would be best to add a sentence or two about quorum not applying until there is a voting membership established.
From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
>Roger, from what you have below, it looks like people could get
>voting rights at (3). At that point, there are attendees who have
>satisfied the minimum requirement of having attended one interim and
>one plenary when the next plenary starts.
I guess I wasn't clear enough about Step (1). The WG does not meet
in Step (1). Step (1) is the EC vote, at the closing EC meeting, to
create the WG. Step (3) is the first WG Plenary Session. At the start
of Step (3), no one would have WG Plenary participation under their
belts, so no one would become a member.
>Therefore, I don't understand why your normal sequence assumes the
>first memberhips are attained at (5) rather than (3). Also, the
>third (or perhaps fourth because there often will be an interim
>meeting before plenary #0) is a reasonable time for people to expect
>the group to have a formal membership established.
I think we agree. My proposal has people gaining membership at the
start of (5); this is the fourth session and the second plenary.
>Also, please consider whether something needs to be said about
>quorum for the interims before voting membership is established.
>Maybe it doesn't as we have been allowing interims already before
>the initial working group plenary, but we do have a quorum
>requirement for Working Group interims in our rules and it isn't at
>all clear what the meaning is of a quorum when you have no members.
Good point. There are various ways to do this. However, we never
worry about quorum in a Study Group. And, as you have said, we have
never worried about quorum at the first WG interim, where there are
no members. And we never worry about quorum at a plenary. So, my
preference would be to follow precedent and not stipulate quorum at a
second interim either.
>>> Normally, the sequence would be:
>>> (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
>>> (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>> (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
>>> (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>>> (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
>>> session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
>>> the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
>>> confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
>>> Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting privileges
>>> shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings"
>>> (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
>>> sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be earned
>>> the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
>>> members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
>>> instead of two under the current rules.
>>> I submit that this system could take a lot of the politics out of the
>>> WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
> >> I'd appreciate your thoughts.
> >> Roger