RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Mat -
Again, very well put. The only thing I would add is that part of the
intent of the 3 session rule is to avoid granting voting status to people
that just show up for one or two meetings; this avoids having them hang
around for a long time on the voting roster when they have no intention
of further participation. One aspect of voting membership that seems to
escape many people is that it is not a privilege, it is a duty. People
that are granted a vote in a WG are expected to take an active part in
the work of the WG (for example, this is why they are required to respond
to at least 2 out of 3 WG ballots in order to maintain their vote). A
person that shows sufficient commitment to meet the 3 session rule is
rather more likely to carry out the duties of membership than one that
just shows up for a single session.
Regards,
Tony
At 23:42 09/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:
Bob,
I think you at least partially
misunderstand my intent in the changes I proposed. Your arguments
seem to focus strongly on the officers of the group, and not the general
membership. So let me ask you this. Why do we have the 3
session rule that normally applies to achieving membership? If one
meeting is enough for anyone to follow what is going on technically, and
understand the procedures in place, why don t we just let every expert
act as a member the moment they walk in the door?
A WG is not a virtual particle popping
in and out of a vacuum. On day one, it has a context that it
evolved in and is continuing to evolve in. That context is the
Study Group it evolved from, and 802 itself. To properly
participate even in an election, I believe participants need to have a
solid sense of what they are there to do, and how it is normally
done. Not to mention some level of familiarity with the
candidates. I don t think one meeting or even one session is
enough. And I don t think the creators of the 3 session rule did
either. While the EC may be able to mentor the leadership of a new
WG, I don t think they can effectively mentor the membership itself if it
is completely green along with the leadership.
I firmly believe that the
creators of the first meeting rule chose to let everyone in because it
was convenient and easy to do the book keeping. I am sure they saw
the potential flaws, but presumed those potentials were generally remote
and could be neglected. They probably did not believe these remote
possibilities justified the inclusion of a more complex initial
membership process. I think we now see that those potentials are
larger than may have originally been anticipated. I for one now see
a need for a more complex start up process which better preserves the
intent of the 3 session rule for gaining membership. So again I
ask, in your mind why have the 3 session rule if 3 sessions are not
required to participate intelligently in a group?
Mat
Matthew
Sherman
Vice
Chair, IEEE 802
Technology
Consultant
Communications
Technology Research
AT&T
Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room
B255, Building 103
180 Park
Avenue
P.O. Box
971
Florham
Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1
(973) 236-6925
Fax: +1
(973) 360-5877
EMAIL:
mjsherman@att.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob O'Hara
[mailto:bob@airespace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:30 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot
on WG Membership
Mat,
I vote DISAPPROVE on this
ballot.
I believe that including any
criterion related to experience with LMSC, its working groups, or study
groups as a prerequisite to holding office is a path to constant judgment
calls by the SEC as to how much experience is enough, what experience is
relevant, and how recent that experience must be. So, must an officer
candidate hold a working group office prior to running a study group, in
order to be qualified? Which positions? How long?
If we are going to require an
experience criterion to be met, I want it to be explicit, concrete, and
measurable. It must NOT be subject to interpretation. Given that
the current proposed change lacks this specificity:
In 5.1.3.1 delete:
"In no case should a
person who is not a member in good standing of IEEE 802 by the end of the
first session of establishment of a WG be considered to Chair a WG, as
they are unlikely to have sufficient familiarity with the Policies and
Procedures of IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards Association
(IEEE-SA), and IEEE Computer Society."
and replace it with:
"Candidates for the
positions of working group chair and vice chair(s) shall be members of
the working group."
I believe that the SEC has the
obligation to mentor the officers that are chosen by the working groups.
It is the membership of the working group that is best situated to
evaluate the qualifications of its leadership. The SEC, at best, is
second guessing the working group decisions.
I also don't agree with the
substitution of study group participation for credit toward working group
membership. This is a hack to try to give preference to study group
participants, on the theory that they have more "experience"
with 802 by having attended a study group meeting or two and, thus, would
make better officers. Or, possibly, this is a misguided attempt to
prevent "loading" the membership at the first meeting and
electing a slate that is "distasteful" to some
constituency. This is unsubstantiated.
The nature of the work of a study
group and a working group is fundamentally different. The task of a
study group is basically administrative and marketing, to get a PAR and 5
criteria document approved. The task of a working group (at least
initially) is mostly technical, evaluating technical proposals and
writing a standard. The types and numbers of people that would
attend the study group and working group meetings can be expected to be
quite different. Why should the working group members have their
choices of officer candidates limited to those that chose to perform the
administrative and marketing tasks of a study group, when the character
of the work changes dramatically at the formation of the working
group?
In 5.1.3.1 reverse the deletion
of the first sentence of this clause (i.e., put it back). This is
clear and concise. The deletion is completely ineffective, since
all one has to do at the first meeting is present a letter of intention
to participate to the chair, in order to gain instant membership
according to the sentence that is proposed to start
5.1.3.1. Also delete the first two sentences in the
second paragraph.
-Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: mjsherman@research.att.com
[mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:31 PM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on
WG Membership
Dear EC members,
Attached you will find the text for an
LMSC P&P revision ballot on WG Membership. This ballot was
approved at the Friday March 14, 2003 plenary session. It is
identical to what was presented at the Plenary session except that per
the minutes of that meeting I have change the Section number 1.1.1.1 to
5.1.3.1. The purpose and rationale for the ballot are as given in
the attached document.
Ballot Opens: March 27,
2003
Ballot Closes: April 28, 2003
11:59 PM
WG chairs, if you haven't already done
so, please invite your WG members to comment through you. Buzz,
please ensure this gets sent to the "802ALL" email list as
well. While I encourage discussion on the reflector, I am trying
something new this time, and have included a ballot response / comment
form. Prior to the close of the ballot, please fill out the
attached form with your vote and a summary of your comments. Then
send it to the reflector. I will accept updated forms until the
close of the ballot. I m also open to comments on how this process
works. Hopefully this will make it easier for me to compile and
distribute comments, and not much more difficult for everyone else.
If it doesn t work, we will fall back to the old process the next round
of ballots.
Thanks & Regards,
Mat
Matthew Sherman
Vice Chair, IEEE 802
Technology Consultant
Communications Technology Research
AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
Room B255, Building 103
180 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 971
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
Regards,
Tony