Plain Text Version: Final Ad Hoc Suggestions on Membership & Voting for the PSWG

PSWG Ad Hoc Group on Voting and Membership:

The following (and the identical  attachment in WORD) is the final list of
suggestions submitted by the group.  I'm asking August Nevolo (I'll owe him
a beer!) to take the actions required to post it on the WEB page for the
PSWG, as I'm traveling Thursday.  The suggestions are simply a list that
were submitted by members of the ad hoc group.  The group worked primarily
by E-Mail with only a few phone conversations.  All E-Mails were sent to all
participants. It is intended that all  submissions are included, with
emphasis on the suggestions that were supported by the most people
(Consensus?).  Minority views are also expressed.  As the Ad Hoc Group has
no authority, the main body of the PSWG will have to decide to adopt the
suggestions or not. I will bring 100 hard copies to the meeting.  If you
feel your comments were slighted or not included, I apologize.  I assure you
that it was not intentional and that I tried to act impartially.  You, of
course are free to voice your views at the main PSWG meeting.  I want to
thank everyone for taking the time to read and write responses to the
preliminary suggestions and questions I raised.  Hopefully the PSWG will be
enabled to act swiftly on our suggestions.

Thanks Again For Your Participation

Bill Buckley



Recommendations on Membership & Voting for the PSWG
February 18, 1998
Ad Hoc group on Voting and Membership
(Compiled by Bill Buckley of ITRON)

1-RECOMMENDATION:  A quorum  will consist of a minimum of  50% (51% or
more?) of the total qualified voting members. (Note: Final recommendations
to the CPUC and changes to these procedures will require a 75% majority of
the qualified voting members.  Reference the Suggestion on Electronic
Balloting in Item # 15 below). Two parties felt that quorums were not needed
and that any business may be conducted at a meeting  as long as there is 5
days advance notice.  There was significant bias or indifference to changing
the 75% to 67%.

2-RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended  final recommendations to the CPUC be
decided by a 75%  majority vote of the qualified voting membership. Simple
immediate matters and incidental matters of convenience shall be decided by
a simple majority vote of the voting membership in attendance at a given
meeting. (See item #6 below.)One party wanted a simple majority to prevail
with the logic that a  list of voters and reasons for voting would be
sufficient for the CPUC to assess a reports significance.

3-RECOMMENDATION: Each qualified member will have a single vote.  In order
that the commission can assess the significance of  a recommendation.  It is
suggested that the final vote tally be included with the recommendation or
report, listing all entities who voted and what their vote was.  Minority
parties may provide a minority report, to be included with the  a final
report or recommendations.

4-RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that membership be open to stakeholders
(firms or entities, not individuals) defined as manufacturers, government
entities, trade organizations, consumer advocacy groups, consultants,
utilities,  or service organizations (ESPs, MDMAs, UDCs, MSPs etc.). A
possible list of firms eligible for membership might be the service list for
R.94-04-031 as of 12-31-97. Consultants can represent other entities with
the limitation that one organization be represented by one individual at a
meeting.    Each entity  should provide a written  statement  identifying
the  person designated as the voting delegate.  The designated delegate from
an entity would be permitted to be replaced or changed  easily if designated
by that entity. The PSWG chair or secretary must be notified in writing
(E-Mail  or hand written letters would be acceptable and  changes would be
liberally accepted, conflicts are to be resolved by the PSWG Chair or the
PSWG itself).  A person in attendance may only represent one entity.  A
"Membership List" will be maintained by the PSWG Secretary.  The eligibility
for membership is subject to challenges at the PSWG meeting.  Some members
of the group felt that trade associations, standards groups, consultants to
voting members, lobbying groups and other "none stakeholders" be excluded
from membership.  It was suggested that the state of California be entitled
to one vote and not entitle multiple state entities to vote independently.
Two group  members felt that there should be no restrictions on membership
as any report to the commission would list an entity and its' position.

5-RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that in order to maintain a voting
membership status, an entity shall have had representatives at a minimum of
one of the previous three meetings (the current meeting is not to be
considered one of the past three meetings).  (Note: there were very strong
feelings that the criteria should be two of the last three meetings,
therefore this recommendation of one meeting out of three is a minimum
suggestion).  There should only be a single member classification, with
meeting attendance open to all parties, including non-members.

6-RECOMMENDATIONS. Motions of Convenience....To accommodate parties desires,
a simple majority of parties in attendance would be required to approve
modification of meeting dates or locations or other minor issues.

7-RECOMMENDATION: A 75% majority of qualified voting members would be
required to change Procedures or   Rules. (Reference the Suggestion on
Electronic Balloting in Item # 15 below.)

8-RECOMMENDATION:  It is recommended that a 75% majority of  qualified
voting members be required to approve PSWG recommendations or reports to the
CPUC.  The use of  an electronic  ballot is key to making this workable.
(Reference the Suggestion on Electronic Balloting in Item # 15 below.)

9-RECOMMENDATION: A  minimum of 14 days notice is required for meeting
announcements.   A  meeting notice will include an agenda (with details of
issues, topics, assignments and pending ballots) as determined by the chair.
The agenda will be distributed to all interested parties including non
members who indicate an interest and to the appropriate  CPUC service list.
It is suggested that a calendar be created at the next meeting listing all
future meeting dates of the PSWG, locations and tentative hosts.  Voting
will not be permitted on reports or "major" issues if not included in the
advance agenda Some Ad Hoc group members felt that a notice as short as 5
days would be sufficient. It was suggested by one group member that the
meetings be alternated between the three main UDC territories.  Issues may
be deferred one meeting if  one third of the members vote to do so.  This is
to insure that the appropriate subject matter experts review technical
material.  All material handed out at the meetings will be referenced in the
meeting notes and made available to attendees.  Submitters are encouraged to
bring 100 copies of presentation material and if possible E-Mail  to the
membership or post on the WEB site for the PSWG in advance of meetings.

10-RECOMMENDATION:  The Ad Hoc group was not chartered to deal with
membership or voting rules for the working groups.  Some members of the
group felt the rules of the PSWG should apply to the working groups, while
others wanted the working groups to be free of administrative tasks.

11-RECOMMENDATION: These suggestions, by the Ad Hoc group, if adopted would
form the basis for conducting meetings and voting and will prevail  if in
conflict with any parliamentary procedure, including Robert's Rules of
Order.  It was suggested that parliamentary procedures, other than Robert's
Rules of Order be considered.  In addition to the 1915 edition of Robert's
Rules of Order, there exists many editions with only minor differences  such
as "21st Century Robert's Rules of Order," "Revised Robert's Rules of
Order," and "The Standard Code of Parliamentary  Procedure."  In order not
to burden the PSWG with formal procedures that, although are proven,  are
also sometimes esoteric and burdensome, Robert's Rules of Order should only
be invoked by the chair only when an impasse of serious contention exists or
by vote of the PSWG.

12-RECOMMENDATION: By utilizing electronic balloting for all decisions on
recommendations and proposals,  the complex issue of proxies does not have
to be addressed. (Reference the Suggestion on Electronic Balloting in Item #
15 below).  It was suggested by one party  that all voting be done at PSWG
meetings and only attendees be permitted to vote, with no proxies or
electronic voting permitted.

13-RECOMMENDATION:  The voting choices on any recommendation or report
ballot will be Affirmative (Yes, with  comments allowed),  Negative (NO,
with written comments required, describing the reason for the negative vote
and what actions the PSWG could take to alter the negative vote), and
Abstain. Ballots will not be secret and companies will identify why they
oppose or vote negative in order that the commission can gauge the
significance of the ballot.  Comments will also be permitted on "Yes" votes.
In calculating the percentage of votes needed to approve a report or
recommendation only "Yes" votes will be counted with 100% being based on the
number of  members with active voting membership status.  Only one member of
the ad hoc group felt that the PSWG should not require comments on negative
ballots.

14-RECOMMENDATION: Reference is made  to  Electronic Balloting in Item #15
below.  Miscellaneous issues mentioned  were not in  the verbal charter
given the Ad Hoc group, but should be brought to the attention of the PSWG,
in order that consideration can be given to potential procedural problems.
These issues could be taken up "one at a time" as they occur or if any party
thinks that the occurrence is likely.  These issues are: meeting hosts and
obligations, meeting locations, size of venue, copyrights of group output,
timetables for balloting, ballot resolutions, reopening of concluded issues,
refereeing between conflicting proposals, availability and publication of
reports or recommendations, meeting conflicts,  an appeal process,  meeting
notes or minutes, terminating a working group or the PSWG it self, and the
ongoing need for a standards review after PSWG finishes its initial work.
Concerns were voiced by Ad Hoc participants that significant work outside of
the formal meetings is needed to solve "non-trivial" problems.  ANSI and
IEC, IEEE and Committee T1 Standards procedures, have been identified as
potential sources of procedures that may be applicable to this group.  A
secretary for the group will be required to effectively  conduct electronic
balloting, maintain attendance records and membership roles.

15- Electronic Balloting:

RECOMMENDATION:

Since the time frame for the PSWG to accomplish its work is limited, it is
recommended that voting be done electronically by E-mail ballot.  This
ensures  a broad quality audience can be part of the voting and participate
meaningfully. Electronic balloting would make it easier  to administer
voting without putting  a significant burden on the participants.
Electronic balloting should obtain a high degree of participation by voting
members. It is recommended that a 75% majority of voting members be required
to approve Reports and PSWG recommendations.  The use of electronic
balloting is key to managing proxies and conflicts with other fora.  Note,
however, that voting membership requires that entities must have been
represented at one of the previous three meetings to maintain their voting
privileges.  One member of the Ad Hoc Group was opposed to any Electronic
balloting.

The electronic balloting procedure should be well defined in order that
fairness is insured.  Suggested steps are as follows:

-The PSWG meeting  will approve a report or recommendations for Electronic
balloting....this would require a simple majority (50%+)

- The PSWG Secretary would E-Mail  a WORD version of the item being balloted
as provided by the editor of the item, to all qualified voting members.
Hard copy would be mailed on an exception basis to those requesting it.  If
the document exceeds 20 typed pages, the secretary  at his discretion may
mail hard copy to all participants.  As a minimum all parties would be
informed by E-Mail, if they are to get a hard copy.  A minimum of two weeks
from the date of the E-Mail will be allowed for ballots to be returned.  The
ballot period  will close on a fixed date, but late ballots will be
accepted.

-All ballots will be submitted via E-Mail to the secretary or a third party
designated by the PSWG

- The secretary will report on the results at the next PSWG meeting and
provide results via E-Mail to all qualified voting members.  The PSWG will
then submit the report or recommendations or deal with a negative ballot as
appropriate. (soliciting members to change votes or re-balloting or altering
or delegating the workgroup to resolve differences)

-Changing of votes will be permitted at any time, if submitted in writing to
the PSWG prior to submittal of  recommendations or reports.

16-NEW TOPIC: The following was submitted by a member of the group.

"Conduct of Meetings:  We really need to be more orderly.

We need a chair for each and every meeting.  The chair must enforce order.
I know most of us are concerned that some relatively few people seem to
dominate the discussions to date, including speaking out without recognition
by the chair.  We need to require a speaker be recognized prior to speaking,
and we need to put some time limits on each speaker....Perhaps we also need
to limit maximum time for discussion for any given item....then it must be
voted on or held over (or ??).  Again, I just feel we need fairly strict
procedural rules for the actual conduct of our meetings, as opposed to
really strict and complex rules for who can participate,  etc."


Respectfully submitted to the PSWG by the Voting and Membership Ad Hoc
Group.  These suggestions were developed by means of E-Mail and telephone
conversations and were open to any participant. This group consisted of the
following  nineteen individuals (In alphabetical order):

William Buckley ITRON
Ward Camp Phaser  Advanced Metering
Thomas Chen eT Communications
Ken Gil EMON
Arthur Hahn EMON
Chris King CellNet
Lorenzo Kristov CEC
Jerry Larson SCE
Greg Lizak ITRON
Anthony Mazy CPUC/ORA
August Nevolo T&NTR(EPRI)
Jamie Patterson ` CEC
Ed Quiroz CPUC/ORA
George Roberts Schlumberger
Steve Roscow* CPUC
Margaret Rostker Goodwin, MacBride, Squen, Schlotz, & Ritchie
Kirsten Stacey PG&E
Eric Woychik CCN
Michele Wynne MZA Grid Services

* E-Mail Correspondence Copies Provided to

Willam J. Buckley
Director of Technical Standards
ITRON
PO BOX 15288
SPOKANE, WA 99215
509-891-3744
FAX:509 891-3590
EMAIL: mailto:bill.buckley@itron.com
Home email:  mailto:Wjbuckley@aol.com
Home Phone: 509-922-1676
For More Information on ITRON see our WEB page http://www.itron.com















.