RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Tony,

I wish to second your opinion regarding hibernating WG requiring a SG and a PAR to come out of hibernation.

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: Tony Jeffree [mailto:tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 4:11 AM
To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Mat/Ken -

If my memory serves me correctly, the concept of Study Groups post-dates the formation of 802.10. At the time .10 was formed, the formation of new WGs was simply a result of the SEC waving its collective magic wand. As such, the 802.10 case doesn't shed any light whatsoever on current P&P or operating practice.

I believe the intent of the current 802 rules, particularly 5.3, is that a future new WG would not come into being without a Study Group first developing a PAR for its work and the SEC making a decision as to where that PAR would be placed. The wording in the rules could benefit from making that a more explicit requirement, but the intent is nonetheless clear. So we're not talking unwritten rules here; badly written rules, perhaps, but written nonetheless.

My personal view is that the same principle must apply to hibernating WGs - i.e., that they cannot be magically un-hibernated by a waving of the SEC magic wand without the pre-cursor of establishing a Study Group to define a PAR for the work that they might do.

Regards,
Tony

At 23:19 10/04/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:

Ken,

So I guess the first question is where do Working Groups come from? My own opinion is that our rules are somewhat lacking in terms of a process by which WG s are formed. For that matter, they are equally lacking in terms of the process followed to restart a WG. Off hand it appears that they simply pop into existence by a vote of the EC. But for sure Working Groups should only exist if they have at least one assigned task to do. Normally we say a WG without an active PAR goes into Hibernation. However if we look at SA Standards Board Operations Manual we find:

5.2 Project authorization

No formal activity shall take place after six months from the day of the first meeting of the working group

without formal submittal of a PAR to the IEEE-SA Standards Board and assignment of a project number (see

5.1.2).

6.1.1 Project Authorization Request (PAR)

As part of the initial PAR procedure, the committee or working group shall appoint a chair (or official

reporter) who shall sign a Copyright Agreement acknowledging that the proposed standard constitutes a

work made for hire as defined by the Copyright Act, and that as to any work not so defined, any rights or

interest in the copyright to the standards publication is transferred to the IEEE.

So clearly their intent is that the WG comes before the PAR. This presents a bit of a chicken and egg problem. In my recollection within 802, the only way a PAR comes into existence these days is by first having a Study Group study the matter. If that SG develops a draft PAR, and the EC determines a new WG is needed to pursue that PAR, POP the WG comes into existence. In my mind the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR WG. I don t believe the SA is cognizant of SG s or gives them any status. These seem to be an 802 unique thing (though I could be wrong). However, I would not normally expect a WG to come into existence without first a debate as to where the work belongs, and an EC SG to at least determine if the work is appropriate for 802. Apparently none of these steps occurred for 802.10, which surprises me. I guess there could be such strong consensus when the issue was first raised to the EC that there was no need for an EC level SG, and the WG could simply pop into existence. My own preference would be that a WG not come into existence until at least one PAR has been well defined for it to work on. However, if a WG were to pop into existence without a PAR, I would hope that except for electing officers, they would initially operate in SG mode to develop a PAR, since they can t exist for long without one. And I would hope that all the members of the WG were members of the SG, or else why would they be there? Can their be a Task Group without a PAR? Near as I can tell our rules don t really deal with Task Groups either. So frankly, I am confused.

Could you provide more details on the formation of 802.10? How did you get to your first PAR?

Thanks,

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: Ken Alonge [mailto:kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew); bob@airespace.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

Hi All-

I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here and stir the pot a little more. In Mat's second paragraph below, he alludes to a Working Group evolving from a Study Group (which happens to be the method by which WGs have come into existence in the recent past) and that a WG doesn't pop into existence. In fact, 802.10 did not evolve from a SG -- it "popped" into existence from work that began outside 802. At the very first meeting of .10 everyone that attended was granted voting rights, and the Chair (who had not previously participated in 802) had Exec voting rights at the next Plenary. Is it the expectation that this will NEVER happen again in 802?

Unless there is an "unwritten rule" that everyone on the current Exec knows (except me, since I haven't been around in a while) that ALL new WGs will ONLY come from SGs that have been spun off from existing WGs (and therefore people have been building up credits toward voting rights in the manner specified in the P&P), then I think the Exec needs to keep the current practice of awarding membership to all who attend the first meeting of a new WG. (Sorry for the run-on paragraph.) If this is really the case, then I think there may be some shortsightedness on the part of the Exec, as to where new 802 projects might come from.

Ken

----- Original Message -----

From: mjsherman@research.att.com

To: bob@airespace.com ; stds-802-sec@ieee.org

Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:42 PM

Subject: RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership

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