[cabfpub] Attendance of Interested Parties at Working Group meetings

[Wayne Thayer]

We're interpreting the bylaws as requiring the Chair to invite Interested
Parties to attend WG teleconferences, correct? If the reason for this only
applies to F2F Meetings as Dean suggests, then I suggest that we update the
new bylaws to allow Interested Parties to attend WG teleconferences without
an invitation.

Wayne

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Gervase Markham via Public <
public at cabforum.org> wrote:

> On 03/02/18 02:49, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
> > I previously agreed with Wayne that an all-day VWG meeting in Herndon,
> > VA on Tuesday, March 6 is a good idea – but we will have to push other
> > WG meetings to later, maybe Wednesday morning.  *_Does anyone object to
> > this plan?_*
>
> Not at all. In the last meeting, we had spare time at the end of the
> second day anyway.
>
> > On the question of attendance (in person or by phone) by Interested
> > Parties at the special VWG meeting – I have pasted in the relevant part
> > of Bylaw 3.2 below.  If you had asked me what I thought it meant, I
> > would have said “IPs can only come to the full Forum meetings at the
> > invitation of the Chair, but they can come to Working Group meetings
> > (teleconferences and face-to-face meetings) without an invitation from
> > the Chair – it’s at their option.”
>
> I would read this as the variant expressed by others - "Forum Meetings"
> includes all aspects of the meeting (because any part could become
> overcrowded), and so clause c) trumps clause a) for WG meetings during
> Forum Meetings, and so you need to explicitly invite people. But I hope
> that task will not be too onerous :-)
>
> Gerv
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20180203/66e554f4/attachment-0003.html>