FW: [802SEC] Ballot periods
There actually was in the past a rule about recirculation ballot
duration,
but it wasn't in the 802 rules. It was in the IEEE Standards Operations
Manual. Around the time that the SA was created, they were trying to
give
groups more latitude to speed the process they took the time period out.
802
rules didn't have time durations for sponsor ballot because that was
adequately controlled by IEEE Standards rules at the time they were
created.
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:06 AM
To: Geoff Thompson; Roger B. Marks
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] Ballot periods
Geoff:
I agree. My assumption is that a WG chair has no authority to pick a
shorter ballot period than that specified in the rules. The WG Chair
isn't
the sponsor, (as IEEE staff has so clearly pointed out to me in doing a
PAR
presubmission). I know of no explicit delegation of sponsor authority
that
allows the WG Chair to pick their own ballot periods, etc. My
assumption is
the ballot center is giving 802 WG Chairs significant freedom based on
history. Until recently, WG Chairs have followed the traditional
policy,
using the same periods that were specified for WG ballots.
--Bob Grow
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Roger B. Marks
Cc: Geoff Thompson; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Ballot periods
Roger-
Again I may have been a little too imprecise.
I think you are correct in that the OR never spec'd it. I didn't
research
that one
It used to be much more firmly in the hands of the person who was
Sponsor
(i.e. Don Loughry) and he was not particularly inclined to write rules
for
himself. The tone of all of that changed on "The Dark and Stormy Night"
which caused the proletariat to actually look at the rules and start
putting the pressure on to fix them.
Before TD&SN the rules were mostly of the flavor that WG Chairs and the
Sponsor had all of the power and discretion.
So, I won't bet you a steak dinner but I'll buy you one since we gonna
be
in Texas.
I do stand by my position that we should default to the only rules that
we
have for letter ballots until we have something explicitly different.
Cheers,
Geoff
At 05:43 PM 2/5/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>Geoff,
>
>When you said "Our P&P have screwed up because they narrowed the scope
of
>a letter ballot" [so as not to apply to Sponsor Ballot], I wondered if
you
>meant that we screwed up last year when we changed the language
regarding
>WG Letter Ballots, including the duration. To check, I looked up the
prior
>rules, and the situation was identical: no reference to Sponsor Ballot
>rules or durations.
>
>I don't have any older rules, but I'll bet a steak dinner that the LMSC
>rules have never specified Sponsor Ballot durations since I've been
coming
>to 802 meetings (i.e., since November 1998).
>
>Roger
>
>
>At 11:13 AM -0800 03/02/05, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>Roger-
>>
>>My profound apologies. In my zeal to protect the process I was paying
>>insufficient attention to courtesy.
>>
>>More appropriately...
>> 1) It isn't the Balloting's job to determine balloting
periods,
>> it is clearly ours.
>> 2) I don't trust their judgement with respect to the defaults
>> they may throw at us on whatever basis they decide (unless they quote
>> chapter and verse of their P&P that over ride ours).
>>
>>RE your statement:
>>
>>>Under the status quo, I do not agree that we are in danger of ballots
>>>being overturned on appeal for following the Balloting Center
defaults
>>>(29-30 days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are
in
>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules.
>>Our rules currently say: "...for recirculation ballots, ..., the
response
>>time shall be at least fifteen days."
>>
>>Our P&P have screwed up because they narrowed the scope of a letter
>>ballot to be that of a "Working Group Letter Ballot" instead of having
a
>>procedure for "letter ballots" and then requiring Working Groups
(among
>>others) to use it.
>>
>>Clearly the scope of LMSC is both Sponsor and Working Group Ballots
(ever
>>since we became "self-sponsored" and broke away from TCCC years ago).
>>This shows up in our P&P in clause 1 paragraph 3
>>
>>
>>The P802 Sponsor Executive Committee serves as the Executive Committee
>>for both the sponsor ballot groups as well as the Standards
Development
>>Groups. The standards sponsoring organization is designated as the
LAN
>>MAN Standards Committee (LMSC) and includes the Sponsor Executive
>>Committee, a balloting pool for forming LMSC Sponsor balloting groups,
>>and a set of Standards Development Groups.
>>
>>AND
>>
>>
>>3.1 Function
>> The function of the Executive Committee is to oversee the operation
of
>> the LAN MAN Standards Committee in the following ways:
>>
>>j) Oversee formation of sponsor ballot groups and sponsor ballot
>>process.
>>
>>AND
>>
>>
>>Clause 4
>> The LMSC Sponsor Ballots will be administered by the Executive
>> Committee in accordance with Section 5 of the IEEE Standards Manual
and
>> Procedure 7 of these rules.
>>
>>There is, of course, no such thing as "the IEEE Standards Manual"
anymore.
>>The last one was published in 1992 (paper only).
>>I do happen to have one, I could bring it to DFW.
>>
>>The IEEE Standards Manual clearly says its our job, not that of
>>Balloting. The IEEE Standards Manual does not mention balloting
periods
>>except for something about 60 days for mandatory coordination.
>>
>>It says, in part, (5.2) "The Sponsor is responsible for supervising
the
>>standards project from inception to completion."
>>
>>In sum, since:
>>
>>
>>1) It is our responsibility
>> 2) We don't explicitly call out the periods for Sponsor Letter
Ballots
>>
>>I believe that the (implicit) rule till we get things fixed is our
>>existing letter ballot procedures.
>>We gotta fix the obsolete reference to "The IEEE Standards Manual" in
>>clause 4.
>>
>>Again, my apologies.
>>
>>Geoff
>>
>>At 09:54 PM 2/4/2003 -0700, Roger B. Marks wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff,
>>>
>>>I object to your characterization of my position. I don't see a
record
>>>of me saying "we should just defer to whatever staff decides to do".
>>>What I said is that the 802 rules do not specify a minimum duration
for
>>>sponsor ballots or sponsor ballot recircs.
>>>
>>>If we change the rules to specify minimum durations then, of course,
we
>>>ought to make sure that the Balloting Center runs our ballots
accordingly.
>>>
>>>Under the status quo, I do not agree that we are in danger of ballots
>>>being overturned on appeal for following the Balloting Center
defaults
>>>(29-30 days for a ballot and 9-10 for a recirc). Those defaults are
in
>>>accordance with LMSC and IEEE-SA rules. [The IEEE-SA doesn't say much
>>>about this, although the Standards Companion says "Recirculations
>>>normally do not take the time that regular ballots do--most are only
>>>about 10 days in length."]
>>>
>>>I would support an LMSC rules change to require minimum durations on
>>>sponsor ballots and recircs. 30 days and 10 days would be my
preference.
>>>
>>>Roger
>>>
>>>
>>>At 4:06 PM -0800 03/02/04, Geoff Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob-
>>>>
>>>>I believe that we screwed up on this one. I thoroughly support your
>>>>effort. The SA staff is in no better shape than we are in this area
and
>>>>remember that, in spite of VERY long standing practice we had NO
>>>>FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER in our OR/P&P for any recirc to less than 30
days
>>>>for the majority of the last 20 years.
>>>>
>>>>It is my position that Roger was incorrect when he said that we
should
>>>>just defer to whatever staff decides to do. This is an area where we
>>>>could lose an appeal. I believe that the SA should be providing
>>>>balloting services to Sponsors under Sponsor rules. Sponsors, in
turn,
>>>>are supposed to get their P&P approved by AudCom. It is not a
rigorous
>>>>system. Paul ultimately is on the hook for the decision.
>>>>
>>>>I would like to take him off the hook...
>>>> ...assure that there is adequate time for review
>>>> ...and remove any uncertainty regarding our system.
>>>>
>>>>My position will be that, with an underlying rationale to see that
the
>>>>ballot is in hand for at least 10 days, our rules need to say that
all
>>>>802 ballot (i.e. Working Group and LMSC) recirculations will be at
>>>>least 15 days from the timestamp of the announcing e-mail until the
>>>>close of ballot.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for grabbing the ball on this.
>>>>
>>>>Geoff
>>>>
>>>>At 12:41 PM 1/24/2003 -0800, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Colleagues:
>>>>>
>>>>>This is to inform you that I intend to propose a rules change to
>>>>>enforce minimum ballot periods for our Sponsor ballots. I also
intend
>>>>>to raise the issue of ballot periods to ProCom for all SA ballots.
It
>>>>>is now clear to me that the ballot center does not enforce any
>>>>>particular ballot period. (I also can't find any rules/P&P that
>>>>>requires them to enforce any arbitrary minimum.) I believe the
ballot
>>>>>center operates to a default -- the ballot being open for some
period
>>>>>of time on 10 dates in the US eastern time zone (probably
restricted
>>>>>by the announcement being sent during their working hours). In an
>>>>>exchange trying to determine how the ballot center counted "days",
I
>>>>>postulate what I thought was a theoretical question asking if the
>>>>>period would be have to be 10 days (i.e., 10 * 24 hours) or only 10
>>>>>calendar dates. At the time the question was posed, I thought the
>>>>>ballot center was enforcing a minimum ballot period what I got in
>>>>>response was an offer for a SB recirculation period a day shorter
>>>>>(i.e., 8.xxx days).
>>>>>
>>>>>I just received a particularly onerous example of what is being
>>>>>allowed by the ballot center. I received the announcement slightly
>>>>>before noon Pacific Time. The ballot closes on February 2 at 11:59
pm
EST.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, for me, I have 9.375 days to respond (and four of those days
are
>>>>>on a weekend). For many international participants, they
>>>>>realistically will have much less time with this ballot (many won't
>>>>>see the announcement until their Monday morning). If one or two of
>>>>>you would like to review my proposed rules change text prior to
>>>>>distribution to the SEC I would appreciate a response.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob Grow
>>>>>Chair, IEEE 802.3 Working Group
>>>>>bob.grow@ieee.org