RE: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG Membership
Roger,
It is possible that what really separates our arguments is semantics.
So let me take a stab at trying to reduce the difference between us
accordingly and see what you say.
First to summarize the argument I will make, a Study Group is a pre-PAR
working group from the perspective of the SA. As such, the WG should be
treated as a continuation of the SG which was doing the work of the WG
from an SA perspective. The CS SAB rules you site are consistent with
this interpretation.
Now for the details:
You cite the CS SAB P&P rules for formation of a Computer Society
Sponsor Committee (CSSC) regarding our membership. I wish to cite these
rules in greater detail for everyone else here since they are relevant
to some of our side issues. These rules read
(http://www.computer.org/standards/ORIENT/p&ptoc.htm):
------------------------------------------------------
<SNIP>
4.7.1.1 Individual Expert
The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material
interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the CSSC,
and attendance of at least two (2) of the three (3) previous
regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed
CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible attendees
at the initial three meetings. Membership also may be granted on the
basis of written participation, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the
detailed circumstances of such grant. Multi-day CSSC meetings shall not
be interpreted as multiple CSSC meetings for purposes of achieving
membership. Except for Organizational Representatives, CSSC Members
shall participate in committees in a manner consistent with their
professional expert opinion as individuals.
<END SNIP>
<SNIP>
4.7.2 Expiration/Revocation:
Membership for CSSC members (other than Officers) shall by default
expire upon the third (3rd) consecutive regularly-scheduled meeting of
the CSSC not attended by the member, unless there is good cause for an
absence.
[A notice should be sent by the CSSC Secretary to the member whose
membership status is at risk thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting
at which the membership would expire.] Membership shall be revoked upon
the second consecutive letter ballot not returned in advance of the
deadline, provided however that a warning notice to that effect was sent
to the Member, whose membership is subject to revocation, a minimum of
thirty (30) days in advance of the deadline of the second letter ballot.
Membership may be suspended upon serious delinquency in payments of
mandatory CSSC fees, provided that the CSSC P&P specifies the detailed
circumstances of such suspension.
<END SNIP>
-------------------------------------
Initial membership issue aside, I find these rules interesting because
they comment on the interpretation of "meeting" and "session" in our
rules (see end of 4.7.1.1 above) and on the membership roll off issue
(4.7.2 above). Also consider the following parts of the CS SAB P&P
concerning order of precedence:
-------------------------------------
<SNIP>
2.0 PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistencies between two or more of the above
documents, the document with higher precedence (indicated by earlier
appearance on the following list) shall take precedence: [IEEE Standards
Association procedures are available at:
http://standards.ieee.org/sitemap.html ]
IEEE Bylaws
IEEE Standards Association Bylaws
IEEE Standards Association Operations Manual
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws
IEEE Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 8
IEEE Board of Directors Resolutions
IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
IEEE CS Constitution and Bylaws
IEEE CS Policies and Procedures, Section 11
IEEE CS Board of Governors Resolutions
IEEE CS SAB P&P (this document)
Robert's Rules of Order
Sponsor Policies and Procedures
Working Group or Study Group Policies and Procedures
<END SNIP>
<SNIP>
3.3 Relation of this P&P to CSSC P&P documents
Default requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default
requirements for all CSSC's. Any changes must be in an approved, written
CSSC P&P.
Minimum/maximum requirement: This P&P document specifies certain default
requirements for all CSSC's. Any CSSC specific changes must be in an
approved, written CSSC P&P.
<END SNIP>
---------------------------------------
Analyzing these snips, the CS SAB P&P clearly takes precedence over our
own. Strangely they give Robert's Rules of Order precedence over our
own P&P, which must be a mistake. But more importantly, in section 3.3,
they seem to give back precedence of our P&P over theirs by identifying
their P&P as a set of "defaults" which ours would over ride if properly
spelled out.
Why is this relevant? On the surface the CS SAB P&P may seem to limit
our membership rules. However, they clearly give us the right to over
ride these limits should we chose to.
Returning to the main argument on initial WG membership - To be clear,
the LAN / MAN Sponsor Committee (LMSC) is one CSSC within the Computer
Society. The initial membership rules you site would apply to formation
of the LMSC, but NOT to formation of Working Group (WG) or Study Groups
(SG) within the LMSC. It is interesting that the CS SAB P&P do call out
some WG and SG rules. These read:
-------------------------------------
<SNIP>
7.0 WORKING GROUP PROCEDURES
7.1 Chair and Vice-Chair
The Chair, and Vice-Chair of Working Groups shall be IEEE or
CS-affiliate members.
8.0 STUDY GROUP PROCEDURES
The purpose of a Study Group shall be to determine whether sufficient
interest and resources exist to develop a draft standard, and in the
affirmative case, to develop the scope and purpose statements for a PAR.
The Chair of a SG shall be appointed by the Sponsor Chair, for a period
not to exceed six (6) months. SGs shall exist for no longer than six (6)
months, at which time the SG shall either submit a PAR to the Sponsor,
or be dissolved by the Sponsor Chair. The SG shall elect officers, other
than Chair, as necessary.
<END SNIP>
---------------------------------------
The point is that while the CS SAB chose to call out rules on the
initial membership for a CSSC, the explicitly did not do so concerning a
WG or SG.
One might think okay, well we should use the rules for formation of a
CSSC as the basis for the formation of a WG. Before reaching this
conclusion we should first ask, what about a Study Group? In this regard
I think it is important to look at the SA Standards Board Operations
Manual (SA SB OM) which takes precedence over both the CS SAB and LMSC
P&P:
-------------------------------------
<SNIP>
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).
<END SNIP>
<SNIP>
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.
<END SNIP>
---------------------------------------
An important point is that there does not seem to be such a thing as a
Study Group from the perspective of the SA SAB. And the work and
function described here in 5.2 and 6.1.1 aligns more with that of a SG
than a WG. So I would argue that the SG plays the role of the pre-PAR
WG. We could every time we wanted to start a new PAR, start a new WG.
Then if we decided not to pursue the PAR, we would disband the WG. It
looks to me what we have done is evolved a mechanism where an informal
or disposable WG is formed (embodied in the SG) so that we don't rapidly
evolve and dissolve WG.
Concerning the CS SAB rules, they are consistent with this approach.
The CS also recognizes the existence of a SG. And while they call out
rules for initial membership of a CSSC, they intentionally do not do so
for a WG. Their definition of a SG is also consistent with the concept
of a SG doing the work of a pre-PAR WG. Also membership rules for a SG
are essentially identical to those called out for the first 3 meetings
of a CSSC or a WG prior. So if you meld together the SG/WG life cycle,
it actually looks very much like that defined for the CSSC.
So that completes my arguments for why I think that it is only semantics
that separates us. Comments?
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: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 7:33 PM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on WG
Membership
I vote "Disapprove", with these comments:
(1) I disagree with the premise of the rules change, which is that is
is somehow inappropriate for new people to assume membership in a new
Working Group. A new Working Group is just that: new. Past experience
in a Study Group should not be a qualification.
(2) 802 works under the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activities
Board, which,I assert, agrees with me. The CS SAB Policies and
Procedures are in fact much MORE open to new participants than are
the current 802 rules. They read:
"The default requirement for CSSC membership is a direct and material
interest and willingness to participate in the activities of the
CSSC, and attendance of at least two (2) of the three (3) previous
regularly-scheduled CSSC meetings, except in the case of newly formed
CSSCs, for which voting privileges shall apply to all eligible
attendees at the initial three meetings."
(3) We should not be trying to hand ownership of a new Working Group
to those who participated in the previous Study Group. An EC Study
Group already has enormous power in that it drafts a PAR, which is
binding on the future Working Group. This gives the Study Group
tremendous clout far into the future. It's a mistake to grant it even
more control by trying to block out new voters.
(4) A EC Study Group is an internal entity within 802. A new Working
Group, on the other hand, oversees a PAR, which is advertised by IEEE
as a new project. The new Working Group has, inherently, a larger and
wider audience than a Study Group. An EC Study Group may surmise that
a new project may have the potential for broad consensus. However, it
needs to test its perceptions by opening a new project and see
whether the broader consensus really exists. The looming need to face
a broad new membership group should provide an incentive for the
Study Group to actually spend some time thinking about developing a
consensus. The proposed rules change will make it even more likely
that we will see, in the future, more of what we have sometimes seen
in the past: narrowly-defined EC Study Groups that operate quietly
and try to avoid dealing with the wide panoply of interests. The
changed rule will further increase the possibility that 802 EC Study
Groups will become perceived as arcane, closed bodies divorced from
the real world.
Roger
At 11:30 PM -0500 03/03/27, <mjsherman@research.att.com> wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
> name="802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf"
>Content-Description: 802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="802.0- Balloted_WG_Membership_P&P_change.pdf"
>
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:802.0- Balloted_WG_Membersh.pdf (PDF
>/CARO) (0015FD27)
>Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-excel;
>
>
name="IEEE-802-LMSC-P&P-Revision-Comment-Form-for-WG-Membership-ballot.x
ls"
>Content-Description:
>IEEE-802-LMSC-P&P-Revision-Comment-Form-for-WG-Membership-ballot.xls
>Content-Disposition: attachment;
>
>
filename="IEEE-802-LMSC-P&P-Revision-Comment-Form-for-WG-Membership-ball
ot.xls"
>
>Attachment converted: TiDrive:IEEE-802-LMSC-P&P-Revision-.xls
>(XLS4/XCEL) (0015FD28)