FW: [802SEC] Ballot periods
Title: Message
Pat-
I can't find anything about timing at all in the 92 Stds
Manual
The only thing I find in the 93 IEEE Standards Operations Manual is:
- "The ballot shall close at the end of the business day on the date
specified on the ballot or when a 75% return of the balloting group is
received. this extension for receipt of a 75% return shall not be longer than
60 days."
Going backward can't find anything earlier either til
I get to '82 (I have a gap from '82 to '88)
1982 says 30 days
Do
you have definitive reference that is later?
Geoff
At
11:41 AM 2/6/2003 -0700, pat_thaler@agilent.com wrote:
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...
>>>>
>>>> ...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