Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike:
Having been actively involved in discussions about voting rules while
attending ProCom yesterday, I'm perhaps more sensitive than usual about
following our P&P process. If we have erred in the past, shame on us
for enforcing our own rules. A bad precident is not something that
should be followed. I'm also concerned at how reluctant you seem to be
to disclose to the EC the answers to questions asked on whether there
was a quorum or the text of the enabling motion.
In my attempt to find a way to not object to the proposed statement,
I've looked at the P&P with the following observations:
1. Three levels of communitions are allowed as communications to
government bodies: 802, WG/TAG, and informal communications (LMSC P&P
14.2). The statement you distributed clearly identifies itself as a
communication from and the position of IEEE 802.18.
2. Per the same subclause approval of a TAG communication must be by
75%, you did indicate unanimous approval so that is not an issue.
3. I find no exception to interim quorum requirments in our P&P for
TAGs, or any special case for government communications. The only
exception granted to accellerate between meeting TAG business is
enabling short notice teleconference decisioins, but only with a quorum
(7.3g).
4. P&P 7.3e clearly states that a position of the TAG must be approved
per 7.2.4.2.
5. P&P 7.2.4.2.1 requires a one-half of members quorum at an interim.
6. I believe a WG/TAG may use an enabling motion to suspend the rules
in its own P&P, but a WG/TAG cannot suspend the rules of a superior
body, which unfortunately is what you seems to me you are attempting to
do here. Therefore, I disagree with Mat that this kind of work can be
deferred at WG/TAG perogative.
7. The fact that a quorum call may not have been made at the meeting I
also find to be quite weak, and therefore appeal bait. LMSC P&P require
a quorum present to conduct WG business. If no quorum attended the
meeting, WG business can't be conducted per our P&P which have higher
precedence than Roberts Rules. Membership must be known, and everything
presented to the EC is to have vote counts, therefore a quorum call is
not required, it is implicit in the numbers of votes and number of
members. I do agree that Paul has task of ruling on this one.
If someone can find a reason why I don't have to oppose forwarding of
this communication, please point out the faults in my above analysis.
If on the otherhand, the communication were modified to be an informal
communication not claiming (or implying) to be the position of IEEE
802.18, none of this would matter.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA)
[mailto:matthew.sherman@BAESYSTEMS.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:10 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Jerry,
Only the Chair (Paul) can rule on stuff like this. Working from memory
(without Robert's rules in front of me) I believe that an Interim
meeting can be held by any WG, TG, or TF with due notice. I believe
common practice is to presume a Quorum is present unless challenged
during the interim meeting. I did not hear that there was a challenge
so personally I would presume that the process was valid based on this
alone.
I don't think it is critical, but I also believe that (unless prohibited
in a groups P&P) decisions may be deferred to a subcommittee on behalf
of the committee. (It may not be wise to do so but it can be done). I
don't know of any specific P&P language off hand that would prohibit the
subcommittee (those showing up at the interim who were empowered to take
actions on behalf of the committee) deciding to forward this document on
behalf of the committee, so again I personally feel it is valid
procedurally.
If anyone else feels different I invite them to comment.
Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman, Ph.D.
Senior Member Technical Staff
BAE SYSTEMS, CNIR
Office: +1 973.633.6344
email: matthew.sherman@baesystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@AOL.COM [mailto:Jerry1upton@AOL.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:15 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
I do not understand your response.
At this point, I request that Mat and/or Paul rule on whether what you
want
to do is valid. If the 802 Chair or Vice Chair states the document was
approved
in a valid manner then I have no problem with the content.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/21/2005 1:09:03 PM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@nortel.com writes:
Jerry,
I see where this is going. Block voting to block the document.
Obviously we need to clarify the status of wireless groups who choose to
meet away from a joint interim. Some hold the view that having the
non-technical regulatory group meet with regulators is useful. The
enabling
motions used in the past in .18 were allowed - now they are not.
Are you making a motion to block the input? If so then it seems logical
that
an email ballot of the EC is needed.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 13:02
To: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
I assume by your answer that quorum was not present when the document
was
approved. Therefore my point is the same. I disapprove and I do not
believe
this document has valid approval to move forward.
How many voters were present when the document was approved?
Regards,
Jerry
In a message dated 9/21/2005 12:24:02 PM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@nortel.com writes:
Jerry,
As I responded to Carl, we had an enabling motion from the July Plenary
to
conduct business without an interim. I'll be happy to provide that to
you.
As I understand it that is how my predecessor was able to conduct
business
at an interim meeting.
Since there seems to be a precedent, and those who have participate in
.18
under the previous chair felt that we had met the same requirement, I
presume that .18 was able to function normally at an interim.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry1upton@aol.com [mailto:Jerry1upton@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 09:31
To: Lynch, Michael [RICH1:2H50:EXCH]; STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Five day approval process
Mike,
Did 802.18 have quorum at the Interim this week?
If there was no quorum, I vote disapprove.
It is my understanding that all motions for approving documents or any
other
official business conducted at an Interim without quorum requires a
reaffirmation vote at a Plenary. A TAG or Working Group cannot waive the
quorum requirement. The members cannot only approve work items for the
Interim or conference calls in advance that will need an affirmation
vote
later. I believe Stuart clarified this for 802.11 members at the May
interim
also.
However, you want a final ruling on this from Mat and Paul.
Regards,
Jerry Upton
In a message dated 9/19/2005 10:03:49 AM Central Standard Time,
mjlynch@NORTEL.COM writes:
Please find enclosed 802.18's comments in response to the European
Commission 2.6 GHz consultation. The comment period closes 15 September
but the membership believes it is beneficial to file a response. This
was approved by unanimous consent.
I would like to be able to forward this the European Commission on 25
September.
Regards,
Mike
+1 972 814 4901
<<18-05-0033-r0-0000-EC_2.6GHz_Band_Consultation Response.doc>>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This
list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.