----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday,
April 11, 2003 5:10 AM
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
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