Issues raised on ballot
1)
Initial membership establishment (main focus of ballot)
2)
Editorial / Minor
3)
Hibernating WG
4)
Treatment of Interims
5)
Block voting issues
6)
Additional leadership requirements
7)
Roll off of membership
8)
Membership in 802 vs membership in an 802 WG, TAG, or ECSG
9)
Membership in multiple WG at the same time
10)Definition of attendance
credits
11)Procedure for WG
start up (officer elections, etc)
12)Retention / loss of
rights if waived in by chair
13)Conformance for SA
& CS SAB rules concerning WG and SG
14)Clarifications on
procedures for rules change
The following is a summary of relevant rules from
P&P with immediate precedence over ours:
From the CS SAB P&P:
3.1
Abbreviations
CSSC: CS Standards
Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs
NHL:
Next-higher-level committee
SAB: IEEE CS
Standards Activities Board
SG: Study Group
WG: Working Group
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.
4.7
Membership
4.7.1
Requirements:
There are
two types of membership for working groups or a sponsor balloting body:
Individual Expert and Organizational Entity. These are mutually exclusive and
decided upon at the PAR approval stage and remain until the end of the project.
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.
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.
4.8.1 Elections of Chairs and Vice-Chairs:
Except
for SAB Chair and Vice-Chair, as their existing terms expire, CSSC Chairs and
Vice-Chairs shall be elected by the CSSC and confirmed by the NHL committee.
The default and maximum term for Chair and Vice-Chair is two (2) years. Initial
appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations
or removals may be made by the Chair of the NHL committee, and shall be valid
for no longer than six (6) months. Chairs and Vice-Chairs may be re-elected up
to four (4) times.
4.8.2
Elections of Other Officers:
Officers
other than Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by a majority vote of the
CSSC. The default and maximum term of office for such elections shall be two
(2) years. Such officers may be re-elected up to four (4) times.
4.13
Duties of Officers
The
Officers of CSSCs other than SGs, shall be at a minimum a Chair, Vice-Chair,
and Secretary. SGs shall at a minimum have a Chair.
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.
From the SA Standards Board OM reads:
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.
Dear EC members,
Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision
Ballot on WG Membership. The ballot closes April 28, 2003 11:59 PM EDT.
This is about one week away. Please get in your votes and comments so we can
have a successful comment resolution on this ballot. (Remember if you do
not vote or abstain it is equivalent to a DISAPPROVE vote). Please
identify any inaccuracies you detect in my status report. Also, very few people
have been using the comment form to provide formal comments. When I say
comments provided, they have often been informal comments that I intend to
include in ballot resolution. Note that due to the large number of rules
issues all running at once, I am not now taking the time to summarize all the
comments to date as I have in the past. I will generate a summary
document and distribute it well before comment resolution on this ballot
occurs.
Best Regards,
Mat
Ballot Results and comments as of 4/29/03
00 Paul
Nikolich
DIS
Comments Provided
01 Geoff
Thompson DIS
Comments Provided
02 Matthew
Sherman
DNV
03 Buzz
Rigsbee
DNV Comments
Provided
04 Bob
O'Hara
DIS
Comments Provided
05 Bill
Quackenbush DIS
Comments?
06 Tony
Jeffree DIS
Comments Provided
07 Bob
Grow
DIS
Comments Provided
08 Stuart
Kerry
DNV
09 Bob
Heile
DNV
10 Roger
Marks
DIS
Comments Provided
11 Mike
Takefman
DIS
Comments Provided
12 Carl
Stevenson
DNV
13 Jim
Lansford DIS
Comments Provided
XX Mark
Klerer
Comments Provided
XX Robert
Love
Comments Provided
XX Ken Alogne
Comments Provided
XX Reza Arefi
Comments Provided
XX Joanne
Wilson
Comments Provided
-------------------------------------------------------
totals: 0 APR 9 DIS 0
ABS 5 DNV
10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS. Ballot
Fails pending comment resolution.
Comments during ballot:
Roger B. Marks
[r.b.marks@ieee.org]
Mon 4/28/2003 7:33 PM
(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.
Jim Lansford
[jimlans@mobilian.com]
Mon 4/28/2003 3:10 PM
I
also vote disapprove; my main concern is the either/or of attendance or letter
of intent in 5.1.3.1. I think many people today understand the 75% rule
for two plenaries...I think it's reasonable to ask them to confirm their interest
after they have met an attendance criteria, but not simply to get voting rights
on the basis of a LOI. Similarly, there could be a somewhat relaxed
attendance requirement for transition from a Study Group, but still confirmed
with an (electronic) LOI confirmation. This would avoid the automatic
voting rights issue that I think a lot of us are uncomfortable with.
Paul
Nikolich
[paul.nikolich@att.net]
Mon 4/28/2003 5:36 AM
Disapprove--I
agree with Geoff's comments.
Tony
Jeffree
[tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Mon 4/28/2003 4:49 AM
I
vote Disapprove. While broadly in agreement with the intent, there are a couple
of things which need fixing still. Comments attached.
|
Clause
|
Comment
Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)
|
Part
of No Vote? (Y or N)
|
Comment
/ Explaination
|
Recommended
Change
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
The
letter of intent should not be optional. Granting of membership should not be
an automatic process; the person concerned may have no intention to take on
the responsibilities of membership.
|
Remove
"(optionaly)".
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
Should
make it clear how participation is asserted, and how simultaneous
participation in two different meetings is prevented.
|
Add the
following text between the second and third sentences of the first para:
"Participation in meetings is recorded via the signup sheet(s)
circulated by the Working Group secretariat. By signing a signup sheet for a
given meeting, an individuall is asserting that he/she has participated, or
will participate, in 75% of the meeting concerned. If an individual signs the
attendance sheets for two meetings in different working groups that occur at
the same time, no participation credit is granted for either meeting.
|
|
|
S
|
N
|
While
not strictly part of this proposed change, I believe that there is one more
issue relevant to the formation of a new WG that needs fixing, namely, that
the rules are very unclear/confused on the issue of how the Chair of a new WG
is chosen and confirmed. Some parts of the P&P imply that the SEC Chair
appoints and the WG confirms; others imply that the WG elects and the SEC
confirms.
|
Fix the
rules on this point. I believe that what should happen is that the WG
recommends, and the SEC appoints, taking account of that recommendation.
|
|
|
S
|
N
|
While
not strictly part of this proposed change, I believe that the current rules
do not make it sufficiently explicit that the formation of a new WG, or the
reincarnation of a hibernating WG, can only happen after a Study Group (Exec
or WG study group) has raised a PAR and the SEC has determined that the
(re)incarnation of a WG is the appropriate way for the project to be
progressed.
|
Fix the
rules on this point.
|
Grow,
Bob
[bob.grow@intel.com]
Fri 4/25/2003 2:06 PM
I
vote disapprove, comments attached.
|
Clause
|
Comment
Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)
|
Part
of No Vote? (Y or N)
|
Comment
/ Explaination
|
Recommended
Change
|
|
5.1.3.1 1st paragraph, line 3
|
S
|
Y
|
Addition
of "in a meeting" adds an unenforcable requirement. Without
electronic monitoring of individuals, there is no way to tell if someone was
in attendance 75% of the time. This is particularly difficult when the WG
breaks into TF/SG and even smaller group meetings.
|
The
rules should state the basic requirement and allow for WG
implementation. Replace the current participation sentence and the new
one with:
"Participation in a session is defined as at least 75% presence as
determined by Working Group attendance procedures."
|
|
5.1.3.1 1st paragraph, line 3
|
S
|
N
|
If an intent
of the way this was written was to disallow credit in multiple WG for the
same meeting times, then that should be specified directly, not obliquely
|
"Working
Group participation credit may be denied when an individual attempts to gain
credit for attendance at simultaneous meetings of different Working Groups,
or TAGs."
|
|
5.1.3.1 1st line deletion, and 2nd paragraph, lines 1-4
|
S
|
Y
|
While I
believe this might be appropriate, I don't think this kind of change should
be attempted in isolation. I am increasingly convinced we need a total
rewrite of the rules rather than attacking little issues one at a time.
At a minimum a change should include both gaining and retaining requirements
during startup.
|
Return
the deleted phrase at the beginning of the subsection and delete the proposed
study group membership text. Any action changing membership
establishment and or retention should be done as a whole.
|
|
5.1.3.1 2nd paragraph, lines 4-8
|
S
|
Y
|
This is
an inappropriate requirement. While 802 participation is relevant to
qualifications it shouldn't be a requirement.
Qualifications for WG chairs are currently left vague (only referencing
technical expertise, not SDO or 802 experience), and are specified in 3.2
while other requirements of the Chair are in 5.1.2. Adding experierience
requirements to 5.1.3.1 is a bad idea.
If SDO/802 experience is required, it is appropriate to add it to 3.2, item
1. It is not absolutely clear if the letter requirement of 3.2 are
prerequisites for being elected WG Chair, or for being confirmed as an SEC
member. I personally believe SDO and or 802 experience are relevant
considerations to both being a WG Chair or a member of the SEC.
|
Delete
from the sentence beginning at the end of line 4 ("In no case should...")
to the end of the proposed paragraph.
Change 3.2, item 1 to read: "statement of qualification to fulfill
the assignment including technical expertise, standards development
experience and IEEE 802 participation, and".
Insert as the new second sentence of 5.1.2: "A candidate for
Working Group Chair shall submit a letter of endorsement (see 3.2) prior to
the election."
|
|
5.1.3.1 3rd paragraph, last line
|
E
|
N
|
The
proposed insertion add nothing of value.
|
Remove
it from the propose change.
|
Geoff
Thompson
[gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Tue 4/22/2003 10:06 AM
Mike
Takefman
[tak@cisco.com]
Tue 4/22/2003 10:24 AM
my
ballot - vote is no with an easy (I think) change to make
it
a yes.
|
Clause
|
Comment
Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)
|
Part
of No Vote? (Y or N)
|
Comment
/ Explaination
|
Recommended
Change
|
|
5.1.3.1 Second Paragraph
|
S
|
Y
|
There is
no need to explain the requirement for being a member in good standing by the
end of the session. It is typical in any democracy that the right to hold
office also requires the person be eligible to vote. Trying to link it to
lack of knowledge of the policies and procedures of 802 opens the issue up to
appeal. Suppose someone is a chair of another IEEE standards group, they
could claim that they can learn the 802 rules fast enough given their past
experience.
|
Delete
from ", as they are unlikely"
|
Ken
Alonge
[kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Mon 4/14/2003 8:11 AM
Tony-
Unfortunately,
since the .10 Standards are up for re-affirmation this year, we can't wait
until the LinkSec SG completes its work. From my participation in the SG
meetings at the March plenary and in the weekly conference calls, as far as I
can tell, the LinkSec SG is at least 6 months (if not longer) away from
deciding on a direction to pursue with regard to a security solution. I
can almost guarantee from the discussions that I've participated in that at
least the Secure Data Exchange (SDE) protocol portion of the .10 Standards will
satisfy most (if not all) the security needs of 802 that have been espoused
thus far. Therefore, if we wait until the LinkSec SG completes its
analyses to move to revise SDE, the .10 Standards will have automatically
been withdrawn. If the revision motion is approved at the July plenary,
the updates to SDE will be complete by the time the SG finishes its anlalyses,
which I'm certain will show that the modified SDE is the right choice for 802 security.
Tony
Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Mon 4/14/2003 8:36 AM
Ken -
I'm afraid I don't share your certainty. While there are some people in Link
Sec that favour using .10, there are also others that do not. Right now, I
don't believe that you can meet the "Broad Market Potential"
requirement of the 5 Criteria, in the absence of confirmation from LinkSec that
they want/need the .10 standards.
As for the reaffirmation issue, if revisions are necessary before the standards
are reaffirmed, then holding off until such a time as there is some real
clarity in LinkSec as to whether they need .10, and if so, what revisions are
needed, does no harm whatsoever. Once we have that clarity, it will be
perfectly possible at that point to raise a PAR to revise the .10 standards,
whether or not they have been withdrawn in the meantime. As far as I am aware,
there are no commercial implementations of 802.10 right now, so there is
absolutely no urgency about reaffirmation.
I have no personal view as to whether or not .10 should be part of the LinkSec
solution; however, I am concerned, as I indicated to you in March, that
prematurely launching into this piece of work will needlessly divert effort
away from the LinkSec activity. It also has the potential of creating a
situation where, having made your revisions, LinkSec would then be under
pressure to use the result, regardless of its appropriateness (or otherwise) to
their needs. I don't want either of those things to happen.
Tony
Jeffree
[tony@jeffree.co.uk]
Mon 4/14/2003 4:23 AM
Ken
-
I don't believe that you are considered to be a SG until such a time as you are
defined to be one. Right now, you are a hibernating WG.
Since a large part of the rationale for revising 802.10 that you presented in
March was your view that a revised 802.10 would serve the needs of the Link Sec
study group, I believe the appropriate course of action would be for any such
PAR to be developed within the Link Sec SG. Right now, the SG has yet to
determine whether or not 802.10 will play a part in whatever mechanisms they
decide to use.
Mark
Klerer
[M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sat 4/12/2003 10:20 PM
Mat,
You
are right. If you have an ECSG and participate in that you get no credit for
anything else. This can even lead to the peculiar result (it could happen in
case of the LL Sec ECSG) that if the work gets placed into another working
group as a TG (and you do not use the 802.11 rule) no member of the SG would
have voting rights (unless granted by the chair).
Sherman,Matthew
J
(Matthew)
Sat 4/12/2003 9:42 PM
Hi
all,
One
more thing that bugs me about the current WG/SG relationship. For an
ECSG, if you participate in nothing else, I don’t believe you get
attendance/membership credit anywhere in 802. This seems particularly
unfair for people who’s work will lead to the formation of a new working
group. If they do happen to miss the first meeting for some reason (and
show up at the second and all future meetings) they get no credit for all their
work. One more reason why I feel SGs (particularly ECSGs) should be
viewed as pre-PAR WGs.
Mark
Klerer
[M.Klerer@flarion.com]
Sat 4/12/2003 9:23 PM
I
agree with Mat.
In
constructing the proposed operating rules for 802.20 I had researched the
operating rules of the LMSC and the various Working Groups in order to use them
as model for the proposal. In the 802.11 Operating Rules I actually found that
when they form a new Task Group from a Study Group all members of the Study
Group are granted membership in the TG. This clearly establishes a precedent
within 802 for counting participation in the SG for credit. Individuals walking
in to the first meeting of the TG do not get voting rights. The rule is in
Section 3.6 of the 802.11 Op Rules
"At the formation of a TG from a SG, all SG participants are automatically
granted membership of the TG."
I
believe that this is a fair rule as the members of the SG have contributed to
defining and seriously contributing to the work. The same rule is incorporated
in the proposed 802.20 op rules as this removes an important distinction
between whether a project were to start form a WGSG or an ECSG and is more
open.
Ken
Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Sat 4/12/2003 6:24 PM
Mat-
I
guess .10 is the exception again, since the hibernating members of .10 are
developing a PAR and 5 criteria for the revision to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.
Since we are doing this work, are we considered a Study Group? Under the
current definition of an SG, I don't believe so. But who is better
qualified to develop the PAR and 5 Criteria for revision of a Standard than the
hibernating working group members? I would like to hear from some of the
other Exec members on this, since I plan to submit the PAR for approval by the
Exec at the July plenary.
Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl)
[carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sat 4/12/2003 7:31 AM
While
I agree with Buzz that a TG must operate under the WG rules, I
still
believe that each TG develops its own culture and often draws a
relatively
large number of newcomers, depending on its task.
From
my experience, a TG is preceded by a SG, which must develop
a
PAR and 5 Criteria ... which the WG chair brings to the SEC for
approval
... and, again from my experience, there are often a number
of
newcomers involved in that process. (So the SEC *does* approve
PARs
for TGs, Buzz ...)
So,
I see essentially no difference between having a SG before a TG
and
having a SG before a WG ... I think it's a VERY good idea in both
cases
and I believe that the folks who have done the work of developing
the
PAR should have credit for that in terms of voting rights and newcomers
should
have to earn theirs by putting forth the same amount of time and
effort
(just showing up for the first meeting [or session] doesn't cut it
for me).
Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl)
[carlstevenson@agere.com]
Sat 4/12/2003 7:21 AM
I
keep reading and I'm still violently in agreement with Mat.
Rigsbee,
Everett O
[everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Sat 4/12/2003 1:15 AM
Matt,
I guess we do disagree on this one, since as I see it, all the various TGs of a
WG must operate under the same set of WG rules and procedures, and all of their
actions must be ratified by the WG as a whole in order for them to be
effective. A new WG has many more degrees of freedom and less baggage to
accommodate as it chooses its course and direction. It is precisely
because the formation of a new WG is a relatively infrequent event that I am
willing to allow the one-time rule, which requires SEC oversight, to be in
effect. If we had that same requirement for every TG that forms,
we’d need to double our SEC meeting times to support that. A new
WG/TAG is the only place where you have the need for a nearly context free
start-up, and the only context is really what is written in the PAR that was
approved. That’s their “ticket to ride” and all who
will participate in the activity should start on an equal footing without
predisposition. That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Sherman,Matthew
J
(Matthew)
Fri 4/11/2003 10:59 PM
Buzz,
Clearly
there is a balance between too much supervision and too little. The
proper place for that balance may shift with the times. I think that the
culture of a TG is a culture unto itself, as much as the culture unto a WG is a
culture unto itself. So I reiterate that if you are going to waive everyone
in at the initiation of a WG, then you should do so at the initiation of a task
group as well. It is far more common that we start a TG than a WG, and
the process where new members of the TG must develop their membership either
during the study group phase, or afterwards using the 3 plenary rule seems to
work fine.
In
my mind the study group plays the part of the pre-par WG. If a WG did
initiate without a PAR the only work they could do would be to hold an SG under
SG rules to develop a PAR. If we are to continue with this first meeting
rule, I’d rather do away with study groups, initiate the WG when we first
decide we want to develop a PAR, let the WG elect it’s officers
immediately, and then do the PAR. If people then want to have voting
rights when the first TG for the WG begins it’s work, then they will have
to participate in the PAR development anyway. Bottom line is I think if
technical people really care about an activity they should show up for the PAR
development. I view a SG as a pre-PAR WG (which is perhaps more
consistent with SA rules), and therefore think that attendance at the SG should
count toward attendance for the WG, since it my mind it is doing the work of
the WG anyway. If the WG already existed (but had not PAR yet) it
would have to form the study group and develop voting rights (for
new people) via the SG anyway. So I don’t understand why we should
treat the case of a new WG differently than that.
Bottom
line is we may just have to agree to disagree. I’m open for more
discussion, but so far I have not been persuaded.
Rigsbee,
Everett O
[everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Fri 4/11/2003 6:04 PM
Matt,
I appreciate the concerns you have expressed. I too am concerned by what
could be interpreted as the Hi-Jacking of an approved WG by a large group of
“outsiders” who had not participated in the earlier Study Group
activities. I have heard opinions expressed that these outsiders are only
there to impede or prevent the creation of a standard by this working group, an
activity which clearly should not be allowed to happen. Perhaps because I
tend to be an optimist and take the somewhat Pollyanna view of most situations,
I believe that there are better ways to deal with this type of a problem than
to try to craft a more restrictive set of rules, which could act to inhibit the
openness of the 802 process. I can envision an alternate scenario which
could be equally destructive, whereby a group of enthusiastic supporters for a
specific approach overloads the attendance at the Study Group phase, and
thereby dominates the initial meeting, the election of officers, and sets the
group off on a very narrow path that excludes other viable proposals from
consideration. Corporate competition is always such that it will try to
rear its ugly head in an otherwise free and open process.
But
that’s one of the major reasons why we (the SEC) are here: to oversee
that the process is open and well-protected from corporate/organizational
abuse. I think we have already demonstrated by our actions that we have
some concern that there may have been some unsavory activity in what transpired
at the March plenary, and that we need to implement some tighter controls in
July to ensure that we can truly see what forces if any are at work. So
while I share your concerns, I would prefer that we seek other remedies to the
potential problems than to restrict the openness of our process. The SEC
is perfectly capable of exerting its influence to ensure that abuses are not to
be tolerated.
As
to your seeing a lack of distinction between the SG to TG transition within a
WG, compared with the ECSG to WG transition, I will merely point out that the difference
is exactly based on the fact that one is done within the pre-established
context of an existing WG, which already has developed a “culture”,
officers, rules, and history of precedents that will guide their TGs, and must
be conformed with to be a viable TG. Thus a “learning
process” should be a mandatory part of gaining membership for the
pre-existing WG. By contrast, when forming a new WG, there is no culture,
officers, rules, or history to deal with. They will all be developed as
the participants build their own culture (probably patterned after some other WGs)
but the group is free to choose the patterns which work best for them. To
give the preferential treatment of instant membership only to prior Study Group
participants, may in fact prevent/delay the actual WG participants from be free
to determine their own culture, and allow a minority to dominate the early
critical period of the WG history. A brand new WG is a very different
context than the a new TG in an existing WG, and we should not try to force
them to be the same.
Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl)
[carlstevenson@agere.com]
Fri 4/11/2003 5:08 PM
Again
I agree with Mat ... I also think a SG should preceed a new WG (or TG) and also
the
"un-hibernation" of a hibernating WG ... I don't think a WG should
"pop" into existence
without
a well-defined PAR and 5 Criteria that the SEC can approve.
I
also favor the notion that documented participation in the SG should be the
criteria
for
initial WG membership and that those who show up out of the blue at the 1st
session
of a new WG/TG or an un-hibernated WG should have to earn voting
rights by
attendance.
Since SGs are chartered from one plenary to the next, those who are
truly
interested in the work can demonstrate it by attending the 1st plenary and the
subsequent
interim ... thus, they would have earned voting rights through the same
level
of participation in the SG preceeding the WG as someone who, for example,
starts
attending 802.xx at the July plenary and then attends the Sept interim gains
Rigsbee,
Everett O
[everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com]
Fri 4/11/2003 4:10 PM
Bob,
This has actually happened in the past (802.4 was brought out of hibernation
once or twice for various items).
My recollection
of the process (not adequately documented in our rules, of course) is as
follows:
1.
As a hibernating WG chair, the chair maintains a list of participants and
“experts”, who can be consulted in the event of a request for
interpretation or maintenance item. Usually these are former WG members,
who participated in the development of the standard.
2.
When a potential need for re-activation is determined, the hibernating WG chair
contacts his list of experts to see if there is sufficient support and interest
to permit meaningful standards development to occur. At the same time a
general Call for Interest is publicized to attract any new interested
participants.
3.
If sufficient participant response is received and documented, the hibernating
WG chair can bring forth a motion to the SEC that a formal reactivation of the
WG be approved.
4.
Assuming the motion to reactivate is approved, at the first official session of
the newly reactivated WG all active participants are granted membership (i.e.
voting rights) and officer elections are held, just as for newly formed WGs.
After that point in time, the 3-meeting rule takes effect.
I
hope this helps and maybe we can see that this point is covered as part of our
ongoing rules update process.
Sherman,Matthew
J
(Matthew)
Fri 4/11/2003 4:11 PM
Ken,
It
was 20 cents well spent. But to be clear, a new WG can evolve from ANY
study group – and EC SG or a WG SG. The point is that some sort of
work (a PAR) should be developed for the new WG before it pops into
existence. PAR’s (again I could be wrong) are developed normally in
Study Groups. I don’t know of any exceptions to this these
days. So I believe a Study Group should always precede a PAR, and thus a
new WG. The same statements would hold for a hibernating WG being brought
out of Hibernation.
Ken
Alonge
[kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Fri 4/11/2003 4:01 PM
Mat-
The
main difference that I see is that .10 was not formed from an
EC study group and, therefore, the members wouldn't have built
up voting rights credits. So, in order to handle a similar situation in the
future (if one ever expects a similar situation to ever occur again) voting
rights would have to be granted to all who attend the first meeting of the WG,
so they could elect officers and begin voting on issues related to their
work. This is the model that could/should be used for un-hibernating a
working group, as well. If the "unwritten" model within 802
forevermore is that all new WGs will ONLY come from ECSGs, then the
rules changes being proposed will work, but I believe that this is a very
shortsighted position.
Looks
like we're back to my original e-mail on the topic, and my two cents wound
up to be 20 cents. Sorry to belabor the point.
Sherman,Matthew
J
(Matthew)
Fri 4/11/2003 3:43 PM
Ken,
I
very much appreciate the history. It sounds to me that your group had a
relatively typical evolution. I don’t think what happened is
incompatible with the rules we are suggesting for today.
Sherman,Matthew
J
(Matthew)
Fri 4/11/2003 3:39 PM
Bob,
Yes,
this is a know issue. I think we can try to address it under the current
membership P&P rules change if we like. My own opinion is that once
all the old members role off you should start from scratch with a study group,
develop a PAR, etc. Note that there should be reaffirmations every 2
years. If a WG has been in hibernation that long they will have to hold a
new election anyway.
Ken
Alonge
[kenneth.alonge@verizon.net]
Fri 4/11/2003 1:35 PM
Mat-
I
dug out the old minutes from the very first meetings of .10. Kim was the
drafter of the PAR, which was reviewed and approved by attendees of the
pre-802.10 WG meetings. The PAR was approved by the Exec during the July
1988 plenary meeting, which was the 4th meeting of the group that ultimately
became 802.10. The minutes from the 6th meeting, which is the 3rd meeting
as 802.10, indicate that all attendees at meetings 4 & 5 had immediate
voting rights. They numbered about 25. The attendees list from the
subsequent 4 meetings (meetings 6-10) indicate that most (90%) of the
original members who were granted voting rights continued to attend and made
contributions to the development of the Standard. In actuality, the
voting membership grew to about 30 over the next few meetings. Kim was
there from day 1 of the group, even before it became 802.10.
By
the way, .10 was formed from the membership of and was sponsored by not only
the TC on Security and Privacy (as I stated previously), but also the TC on
Computer Communications. There was quite a diverse membership from the
standpoint of industry, government, and academia representatives, as well as
their expertise in networking and security.
Bob
O'Hara
[bob@airespace.com]
Fri 4/11/2003 1:30 PM
Ken
raises (indirectly) another issue with membership. What happens if the
SEC decides to bring 802.10 out of hibernation? Who are the
members? When do they gain membership? This is another example of
how a WG might "pop" into existence.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Fri
4/11/2003 9:35 AM
Ken,
What
you describe sounds very much like an informal version of what I would normally
expect to do today. If I understand you correctly (correct me if I
don’t) the sequence was:
Informal
discussion outside and within 802
Plenary
1: Present proposal need for new work item to EC and tutorial to membership
Plenary
2: Present PAR to EC. Approve PAR. Approve WG with acting chair
Plenary
3: First WG meeting. Have elections.
Today
I think the sequence would have run:
Plenary
1: Present proposal for new work, tutorial to membership, form SG to write PAR
Plenary
2: Present and approve PAR. Approve WG with acting chair
Plenary
3: First WG meeting. Have elections.
So
I don’t think things are so different. To me the more important
questions are:
Did
the original leadership of 802.10 (Kimberly for instance) participate in the
PAR development? Was the first WG meeting Kimberly’s first
meeting?
How
many showed up for that first meeting? Of those that showed up, how many
became regular members vs just showing up to say they have voting rights?
How many of those at the first meeting participated in the PAR
development? Were the one that stayed on in the group the ones that
helped develop the PAR, or the ones who showed up for the first time at the
first meeting?
I
think these are the questions that are most relevant. I think that today it
is a given that we would not start a new WG without first having a draft PAR in
mind for them to work on. Personally, I would prefer a slightly extended
SG process to give people more time to acclimate. I would have preferred
a process more like:
Plenary
1: Present proposal for new work to EC, form SG
Plenary
2: Present draft PAR and Tutorial to 802 membership
Plenary
3: Approve PAR, approve new WG
Plenary
4: First WG meeting. Have elections.
But
I recognize this might be impeding progress more that people would like, so I
doubt I would ever mandate a 3 Plenary approval process. Just my
thoughts.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Fri
4/11/2003 8:18 AM
Tony,
I
wish to second your opinion regarding hibernating WG requiring a SG and a PAR
to come out of hibernation.
Mat
Ken
Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Fri
4/11/2003 8:24 AM
Mat/Tony-
My
recollection of what happened in the formation of .10 in the Wild Wild West
days was that a group of security engineers who were members of the Technical
Committee on Security and Privacy (not sure if I've got the name exactly right)
determined that there was a significant need for security in 802 LANs. A
few of those engineers put together a tutorial, which was presented at an
802 plenary meeting (sometime in the 1987-88 timeframe). Based on
that tutorial and some discussion with members of the Exec, who agreed that secuirty
should be provided for 802 LANs, a PAR was developed by the founders of .10 and
submitted to the Exec for approval at the next plenary. The rest is
history. All attendees at the first meeting of .10 immediately got voting
rights (I unfortunately did not attend that first meeting, so I had to earn
mine through the usual process). The original .10 Chair (Kimberly
Kirkpatrick) was granted Exec voting rights at the next plenary -- she had no
previous 802 experience, but was mentored by the other Chairs. When I
took over from Kim in 1992 after she became seriously ill, I also had no
experience in running an 802 Working Group (or even a study group for that
matter), but I too was mentored by the other Chairs. As I recall, there
were also some tutorials offered by the IEEE Staff on "How to be a Good
Chair" - my own made up title for this. These were very helpful in learing
the processes.
Obviously,
things change over time (sometimes for the better), but I hope we don't ignore
the successes of the past. I firmly believe that there should be a well
worded process for forming new Working Groups in any revision of the P&P,
which is flexible enough to accommodate formation of a Working Group
directly from an outside body of expertise that doesn't have to become a Study
Group, which is spun off from another 802 Working Group first.
Also,
at some point (hopefully soon) the issue of un-hibernating a Working Group
needs to be addressed, because I will be presenting a PAR to the Exec before
the next plenary for revisions to IEEE Std 802.10-1998.
Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Fri
4/11/2003 7:04 AM
Again
I believe I am in violent agreement with Mat.
Tony
Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Fri
4/11/2003 4:11 AM
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.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Fri
4/11/2003 12:04 AM
Buzz,
So
I thank you for your gentle correction. Really, I should not be second
guessing the intent of the creators of this rule. Of course, I
don’t have to. I can simply say I disagree with it whatever it
was. In my mind recent events have shown that the 1st meeting
rule is simply too open to abuse to continue to exist. There has to be a
better way. I was going to respond to your comments point by point, but I
decided not to in light of recent traffic I received.
Perhaps
the membership question is more complex than it sounds. Perhaps we also
have to ask what is a Working Group, and what is a Study Group?
Ken’s e-mail caught me off guard because it had not occurred to me that a
Working Group pre-exists a PAR. Repeating from my response to Ken the SA
Standards Board OM reads:
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.
In
addition Joanne Wilson of ArrayComm hit me with some side traffic that
highlighted the fact that Study Groups exist within Working Groups as well as
at the EC level. When a Study Group transitions to a Task Group, there is
no membership issue. Members of the SG were already WG members.
Only WG members who show up at the first TG meeting get’s to vote in
elections. Anyone else who suddenly shows up must first develop
membership in the WG to participate. However the decision on where to put
a PAR developed by an SG is made by the EC. They could take that same PAR
and put it in a new WG. Suddenly, a whole different process is followed,
and everyone get’s instant membership just for showing up at the first
meeting. Is forming a new Task Group really that different? Why
must new TG members first develop WG status while someone walking in for
potentially the same task in a new WG gets instant membership? This does
not seem right.
So
I’m going to get a bit heretical here. The concept of a Sponsor SG
does not exist at the SA level. It is an 802 construct that I feel is very
useful. Most PAR’s for new work (aside from Maintenance and similar
activities) are proceeded by a study group. Most new Working Groups (hope
I’m not wrong again) are proceeded by a Study Group. It seems to me
that the 802 SG fills the role of the pre-PAR WG. The rules in the
SG are different in than in the WG and perhaps more appropriate for a group
that suddenly appears out of nothing. I’d rather see all new
“WG” transition through a SG phase rather than pop into
existence. I’m sure there are aways exceptions, and I suppose the
EC should be able to waive WG into existence for those exceptions. But I
believe it is better for people to become aquainted with each other and the
work at hand before appointing a leader. Having the EC appoint a chair
and a little later having elections seems like a better process for me.
So I like this concept of a pre-PAR WG being an SG. Perhaps I am way off
base, but this is my view at the moment.
So Buzz,
how I would respond to each of your points is as follows:
1)
Having an SG as a “Pre-Par” WG I think is a better process. I
would not think it is easy to make intelligent decisions about your leaders and
the proper approach to developing your work without any guidance prior to the
first WG meeting. So I think moving slower at the first meeting is better
than moving faster (if in fact the group has limited experience with 802).
2)
Why is this so much different than the transition of a SG to a TG? If it
is people involved are going to change so much, then a Task Group should permit
anyone to become a member at their first meeting too. I don’t think
this is what we want, and I don’t accept that the membership in the
change over from an SG to a WG changes that radically in general. If so,
they should be stuck with the same rules as for a SG transitioning to a TG.
3)
Agreed. But we still need to guard against abuse as a community. I
believe in flexibility. But there is such a thing as too much flexability.
We need a balance, and right now I feel that balance is not to base initial
membership on the first meeting. I’m not sure why this would be
considered more flexible than some other rules.
4)
Again, the folks joining a new task group also are developing a new context for
a new task. And yet they can live within the requirements of prior
establishment of membership. I don’t see why new WG could not live
with the same requirement given the existence of a Pre-WG SG.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Thu
4/10/2003 10:20 PM
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?
Rigsbee,
Everett O [everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com] Thu
4/10/2003 4:20 PM
Matt,
Where I sincerely appreciate your attempting to follow the intent of the
framers of the Bylaws, I think you may be making a assumptive error in
believing that the reason for the start-up rule was one of convenience or
oversight, rather than design. My recollection of the intent as discussed
and agreed during the drafting of the rule centered on the following primary
points:
1.
In order to begin the work of the new Working Group, it is necessary to have
bona fide members who can elect officers and participate in votes on early substantive
matters to help set the course and future direction of activities. Early
consensus of the WG participants allows them to move forward expeditiously, and
begin to focus on the issues where the real work needs to be done.
2.
The make-up and character of those officially committing (by their attendance
at the 1st official session) to participate in the work defined by
the PAR, as approved, can change dramatically from that of the Study Group
participants and that therefore basing membership requirements on prior Study
Group participation might very well cause an unfair bias to the early
membership and control of the committee that could lead to major problems and
power struggles further down the road. Indeed where there has been shown
to be a division of a large Group into two or more diametrically opposing
factions, the tendency has been to divide the group and let each faction pursue
its preferred direction, and let the market and ongoing support determine the
eventual winner. One has only to look back at 802’s history to see
several cases where serious technology splits lead to several standards, which
ultimately failed to win enough market share to survive in the long-term (e.g.
802.4, 802.5, 802.6, 802.9, 802.12, 802.14, and FDDI to name a few).
3.
WGs in start-up mode have many problems to deal with and it is the make-up of
the actual participant group that will shape the tone and character of the
Group. Each 802 WG tends to have its own “culture” and
style. What works perfectly for one WG, may be anathema for another.
So we have to be willing to allow the actual participant set to establish
its own culture & traditions; no “One-Size-Fits-All” set of
rules will do the job here. Diversity is the rule, rather than the
exception. Our rules need to establish a common framework that is
necessary and sufficient to achieve meaningful results, but there must be
plenty of latitude to permit the diversity which has made 802 such a rich and
productive environment.
4.
The intent of the 3-meeting rule is to ensure that those joining an established
WG have sufficient time and experience to learn the history, culture and style
of the WG before becoming an active participant. However, in the case of
a new WG, they will be establishing their culture and style as they go along
(under tutelage from other WGs), so there is no need for the learning
period. Later-comers, however, will need the time to “catch
up” on the history and style of the WG as set by the original
participants. The 3-meeting rule was also viewed as a serious deterrent
to factions attempting to bring in a horde of supporters to influence the
outcome of votes during a single session, since it would require a lot more
cost and pre-planning under the rule. So far it seems to be working well
in that respect. The fact that our rules allow sufficient latitude that
there are occasional disputes over interpretation is a necessary evil to
permitting the diversity we want and need. This is one of the primary
reasons we need an SEC: to help resolve such disputes on a fair and
equitable basis. We just need to be ready to step up when the time
arrives.
I
recollect no mention of any convenience or bookkeeping factors in selecting the
start-up rules. The players get to choose the game and adjust the rules
to fit their needs. If there is too great a division of large opposing
factions to permit forward progress, then it is better to divide into
independent groups that can each move forward independently. Splinter
factions tend to find a mainstream camp to join and work with.
Joanne
Wilson [joanne@arraycomm.com] Thu
4/10/2003 4:10 PM
Bob,
I
just wanted to weigh in on this discussion because your comments do not
reflect my experience in the MBWA Study Group.
First,
as you may recall, the MBWA group was initially chartered under 802.16 and then
was rechartered as an
ECSG.
We met at 4 times in May, July, September and November 2002. I attended
each of these sessions and my company
had
from 2 to 4 people participating in the meetings throughout this period.
The reason that we had up to 4 people
attending
some of those sessions was because the discussions were of a technical nature
and we needed to have people
from
our research area attend. Specifically, to develop the PAR we needed to
address the distinctness of the project
as
compared to work within other standards bodies, the desired characteristics of
the new standard and the technical
feasibility
of achieving the objectives. My take from your comments is that other
groups undertake a much lower
level
of technical deliberation in the development of other PARS. I don't
know if that is true, our group may have been somewhat
unique.
Additionally, we had 2 people (myself included) attend the Meeting 0 of working
group. (I note that the discussion thus far
about
membership does not take into consider attendence at Meeting 0.)
So, while I agree that a new working group should
commence
quickly toward doing the even more technical work of writing a standard, at least
my experience in the MBWA ECSG is
that
it was not of an administrative or marketing nature.
Having
attended five IEEE 802 sessions prior to the "initial 802.20 session"
you can imagine that I am dismayed that rules allow for 802.20
membership
(and officer positions obtained) by people who had never until that point
attended an 802 session, who don't understand
what
the PAR is and isn't, and who don't know the 802 standards development
process. I found the study group process that creates a
PAR
to be an exceptional one that should provide a new working group with a
"running start" toward successfully achieving its objectives.
It's
also a process that is unique to the IEEE -- so if you hadn't
participated in the process you'd have missed the substantial amount of
deliberation
that
went into deciding on the PAR which is binding on the new working
group. There's an additional twist that has not been taken into
consideration.
A new PAR can establish a new Task Group within an existing working group.
One cannot establish membership in a new
Task
Group under an existing Working Group in one meeting. One could, however,
be able to establish membership in that Task Group if
they
had participated in the prior Study Group process.
It
should also be noted that the Study Group experience was invaluable for new
participants in IEEE 802. Having
particiated
in TIA TR45, 3GPP2 and ITU-R meetings, I can tell you that IEEE 802
meetings are conducted very differently from those groups.
Experience
in other SDOs doesn't make you an expert on standards development in IEEE
802. In fact, it may be toward ones detriment
because
it establishes an incorrect belief about how the process
is expected to run in IEEE 802. Your argument that
participation in the
Study
Group gives unfair advantage to new working group members could also apply to
new members of an existing working
group,
for example at the initiation of a new project. Why should existing
members have the unfair advantage of membership while
new
members have to wait several meetings to establish membership? I don't
see any difference.
Additionally,
I note that some of the new people in 802 want to revisit issues that were
debated and resolved in the Study Group
process.
Therefore, it seems to me that 802 should do more to encourage participation in
the Study Group that defines the PAR
that
creates the a new working group. Gambling, in my humble opinion, would be
to not participate in the Study Group process
in
an area that is of interest to my company -- particularly when the Working
Group is required to achieve the requirements
established
in the PAR.
I
also note your last comment, that the 3 session rule "is in place after
the technical work has begun to ensure that the participant
is familiar with the work that has been done thus far, and to prevent stuffing
the ballot box when individual contentious issues arise."
I believe that also argues for applying something similar to the 3 session
rule, e.g. taking into consideration participation in the
Study
Group, for establishing membership in new working groups. That is, unless
you believe that leadership and organization of the
work
are not of sufficient importance that ballot stuffing should be discouraged.
I hope
you will take these thoughts into consideration in deciding on how to revise
the P&P on WG membership.
Stevenson,
Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com] Thu
4/10/2003 4:01 PM
I
generally agree with Mat.
Bill
Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net] Thu
4/10/2003 3:50 PM
Gentle
people,
I
believe that in some of the recent emails on the rules for membership
in
a new WG/TWG that the authors are continuing the sloppy/incorrect use
of
the words "meeting" and "session".
Section
8, Chapter IV of 10th edition of Robert's Rules of Order
provides
the following definitions.
"A
meeting of an assembly is a single official gathering of its members
in
one room or area to transact business for a length of time during
which
there is no cessation of proceedings and the members do not
separate,
unless for a short recess, as defined below. (For modification
of
the "one-room-or-area" requirement when the bylaws authorize meeting
by
videoconference or teleconference, see pages 482-83.) Depending on
the
business to be transacted, a meeting may last from a few minutes to
several
hours."
"A
session of an assembly, unless otherwise defined by the bylaws or
governing
rules of the particular organization or body, is a meeting or
a
series of connected meetings devoted to a single order of business,
program,
agenda, or announced purpose, in which - when there is more
than
one meeting - each succeeding meeting is scheduled with a view to
continuing
business at the point where it was left off at the previous meeting."
In
short, 802 WGs/TAGs have morning, afternoon and evening meetings and
Interim
and Plenary sessions. The sessions are comprised of multiple
morning,
afternoon and evening meetings.
PLEASE
use these definitions of meetings and sessions. Otherwise I, and
I
suspect others, have no idea what you mean when you use these words.
Reza
Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com] Thu
4/10/2003 2:16 PM
Bob,
I
found your comments in the following message about characterizing the nature of
the work in a study group being "administration and marketing" quite
insensitive. Perhaps you haven't recently participated in a study group. Just
take a look at the activities and discussions of recent SGs including MBWA ECSG
and the Link Sec ECSG for a wealth of technical discussions. I am sure SG
members have a different view than yours about the nature of their group.
In
regards to your other comments about participation of companies, in real world
if a company is interested in the topic of an SG, they will actively
participate in the SG since the SG is where the project is being defined
(through PAR). I don't think I need to give you examples of how many companies
started during the SG work and continued on the WG in many 802 projects. Given
your many years in 802, it was quite unexpected of you to make those arguments.
Ken
Alonge [kenneth.alonge@verizon.net] Thu
4/10/2003 2:10 PM
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.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Thu
4/10/2003 1:46 PM
Bob,
I
think I now understand your reasoning better. However, I don’t
think I personally agree with it. Your last line is the one that I find
of greatest interest. At no point is their more potential to stuff the
ballot box than at the first meeting, particularly for setting up the officers
of the group. Those officers will then set the tone even if all the
“initial” members go away. If we must guard against this in
future sessions, certainly we should guard against it at the first.
Regarding
the flow from SG to WG, I don’t believe the SG goals are purely admin /
marketing, or that these functions ceases once the WG begins. The goals
being developed in the SG are technical as well, and require technical
input. I see nothing wrong with expecting the technical people most
interested to participate in the development of these goals. In terms of
rewarding the people most interested in starting an activity up with early
membership, yes I do think that is appropriate. We should encourage
people to participate in the development of an activity and not just wait on
the sidelines. Also, I would question the wisdom of any group that closed
out the potential for proposals after only 2 WG plenary sessions.
Generally I believe discussion should be open longer than that. I could
see a shorter term for a maintenance TG, but if you are starting a whole new
WG, I think a reasonable amount of due diligence is appropriate.
Regardless, the Chair can always waive people in, and most chairs allow folks
to participate in discussions even without membership.
Anyway,
we clearly have some opposing opinions here, and I’m not sure of a
resolution. Somehow I believe we want more requirements for becoming a
member than just showing up at the first meeting. Hopefully we can come
up with some compromise ideas.
Reza
Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com] Thu
4/10/2003 1:13 PM
Mat,
Your
explanations are great. I think we are on the same page but for the interim
issue.
Let's
call the meetings P1, I2, P3, I4, P5, I6, P7, etc., where P is plenary and I is
interim. The numbers are sequential session numbers.
As
you said, "if
there are no interims and someone does not show up at the 2nd
plenary session, they WILL lose their membership" but there will be
an interim in the case of 802.20 and one can replace that with the plenary in
July and stay a member until next March without attending any other
meeting. I know the elections will be in P3 and they better not miss it
but the rules should be written for a general case. Other groups won't have
elections in their P3 session.
The
window of 4 plenary for a new WG spans from P1 to P7, which is a year. A person
attending P1 and then disappearing will only lose membership at P7 (a year
later). This could create two problems if a lot of people do this:
1- quorum
at the I sessions
2-
WG ballot return ratio
So,
I think this in itself is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Back
to the Interim issue and 802.20: If there is an I2, then according to current
rules, you can't revoke membership upon absence in P3 if someone attends I2,
UNLESS the rules clearly say that you need to attend AT LEAST P3 in order to
stay a member. Or perhaps all of them (P1, I2, P3). What do you think?
Bob
O'Hara [bob@airespace.com] Thu
4/10/2003 12:22 PM
Mat,
I
think my reasoning is pretty clear, the character of the organization changes
distinctly between being a study group (administration and marketing) and being
a working group (technical work and production of a standard). I believe
this is the reason for the immediacy of membership at the first working group
meeting, that the first working group meeting is where the first surge of
technical experts will show up. I do not want to delay the work of
receiving, reviewing, debating, and selecting technical proposals until
the third meeting, if that work can be done more expeditiously. I don't
believe that the rule is as it is because it was the easiest path. But,
there are some present that were also present when he rule was drafted. I
am sure they will offer their recollection.
Unduly
delaying the membership of the technical experts that arrive at the first
working group meeting gives those people/organizations willing and able to risk
the time and money to attend the study group meetings disproportionate
representation in the early stages of the working group. Because there is
no guarantee that a working group will be formed for every study group in
operation, many companies wait to send people until the working group is a
certainty.
Do
we want our membership rules to reward the gamblers with the officer positions
and control of all working group decisions for the first two meetings,
including, potentially, adoption of operating rules, selection of task group
organization, election of task group chairs, selection of document editors, and
possibly even selection of the initial technical proposal? That is even
more of an abuse of the (proposed) rule than has been observed with the current
rule.
Don't
make the cure worse than the disease.
To answer
your question about the 3 session rule, it is in place after the technical work
has begun to ensure that the participant is familiar with the work that has
been done thus far, and to prevent stuffing the ballot box when individual
contentious issues arise.
Reza
Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com] Thu
4/10/2003 10:53 AM
Mat,
About
the 2 out of 4 rule: What I was trying to say was that it does not provide a
fast roll off for those who just show up at the first meeting to see what's
going on and then decide not to continue. Applying it after the second plenary
session won't solve the problem UNLESS you specify what happens if someone
doesn't show up at the second plenary session. There is also the issue of the
interim between the first and the second plenary sessions. Would attending that
count in any ways, or affect one's voting rights in the second plenary?
I
also fully support your position about counting SG attendance towards the WG
membership. The "3 session" rule could be applied here. This helps the
WG to get started to work immediately. This way, the new WG doesn't even have
to waste an interim session before its first plenary session.
Tony
Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk] Thu
4/10/2003 2:39 AM
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.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Wed
4/9/2003 10:42 PM
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?
Bob
O'Hara [bob@airespace.com] Wed
4/9/2003 1:30 PM
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.
|
Clause
|
Comment
Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)
|
Part
of No Vote? (Y or N)
|
Comment
/ Explaination
|
Recommended
Change
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
Elimination
of membership for those joining at the first meeting of the WG is not
acceptable.
|
Undelete
the first sentence and delete the first two sentences of the second
paragraph.
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
Evaluation
of the qualifications of WG officers by the SEC is a morass we don't want to
enter.
|
Replace
the sentence "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." with
"Candidates for the positions of working group chair and vice chair(s)
shall be members of the working group."
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
There is
a substantial difference between "attending" and
"participating"
|
Replace
"attending at least 75% of the meetings in a session" with
"participating in at least 75% of the meetings in a session"
|
Mike
Takefman [tak@cisco.com] Wed
4/2/2003 5:12 PM
some comments on the ballot.
I did not use your xls format
as I wanted to start some
discussion.
I support the overall
objectives of the ballot but I have
a few nits.
My presumption at the moment
would be to vote disapprove
with comments. Reasonable
disposition of my comments would
change my vote to approve.
1) Original text is
One duly constituted interim
Working Group or task group meeting may be
substituted for the Working
Group meetings at one of the two Plenary sessions
(See 5.1.3.5 Meetings and
Participation).
I suggest the following
single word change.
One duly constituted interim
Working Group or task group SESSION may be
substituted for the Working
Group meetings at one of the two Plenary
sessions (See 5.1.3.5 Meetings
and Participation).
Reading your proposed change
would mean that interims are not
really useful in terms of
gaining membership since only a single
meeting out of the Interim
session could be used to buttress
the individuals lack of
attendance at a Plenary session.
I believe the intent is that
if someone attends 2 full sessions
and meets the 75% criteria
(at least one of which is a Plenary
then they should be eligible
for membership).
2) Original text is
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.
I suggest the following
change as I prefer a positive definition
as compared to a negative
one. Also, I have been more explicit
in defining what members are
acceptable. I.E. current members of
802 and new members who have
participated in the SG phase of a
sufficient duration to be
members of the new WG. I
felt the old language was
unclear on the second point.
The Chair of the WG must be
either: a member in good standing
of IEEE 802; or has met the
requirements for membership of the new
WG. This insures the Chair
has sufficient familiarity with the
Policies and Procedures of
IEEE 802, as well as the IEEE 802 Standards
Association (IEEE-SA), and
IEEE Computer Society.
3) Original text is
Working Group members shall
participate in the consensus process
in a manner consistent with
their professional expert opinion
as individuals, and not as
organizational (industry or company) representatives.
While people acting as
individuals is the ideal, I think we
all know that this is not
always the case. I do not have an
well thought out addition,
but I throw this out there for
comment by other people. Add
this following the paragraph
(as part of the paragraph)
All members shall announce the
organization they represent, and
in the case of agents (eg.
consultants) their client organization.
Robert
D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Fri
3/28/2003 8:02 AM
Attached
is my comment on the spreadsheet. I have registered my vote as non-voter.
|
Clause
|
Comment
Type
(Editorial of Substantive)
(E or S)
|
Part
of No Vote? (Y or N)
|
Comment
/ Explaination
|
Recommended
Change
|
|
5.1.3.1
|
S
|
Y
|
Ex-802
participants with significant knowledge of a new area we are looking at may start
re-attending 802 specifically to join a new group. It is possible that
they have the expertise, and detailed knowledge of IEEE 802 policies and
procedures. Modify the text to allow for this possibilty.
|
Delete:
"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 change the words
"who is not a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who
has never established membership and is not presently a member in good
standing in IEEE 802,..." or words to this effect. Also add
" Individuals who are not presently members in good standing in IEEE
802, but who have been previously, will need to submit a letter of intent to
the 802 Chair indicating their plan for continued participation in the new
working group prior to their consideration for approval as a WG chair by the
SEC" or words to this effect.
|
Robert
D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Tue
3/25/2003 3:41 PM
Mat,
I have one proposed change to your "proposed rules" based on the
scenario of someone "coming out of retirement" to chair a new
WG. If we look at the present situation for 802.20, your rules could bar
Ken Alonge, the chair of the hibernating 802.10 from becoming the 802.20 chair
because he would be "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." Obviously, that
would not be the case for Ken.
My
recommendation would be to change the words "who is not a member in good
standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership or
is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." or words
to this effect.
Sherman,Matthew
J (Matthew) Tue
3/25/2003 7:05 PM
Robert,
I
agree with the sentiment, but not necessarily the specifics. I
think the real point I am trying to make is the Chair should also be a
member. You should not elect someone who is not a member as chair.
The issue of a hibernating working group is a problem that has to be fixed, and
my current P&P change does not address it. During the ballot I hope
someone will bring this up and propose changes to address it. Personally,
if the hibernating chair has been keeping up with things, I don’t have a
problem waiving them in. But I think they should be formally waived
in. That is, they should be appointed by Paul on an interim basis.
Keep in mind that normally WG under go confirmation elections every 2 years.
If a Working Group has been hibernating, they haven’t had
elections. So, I tend to think elections of some sort (that will probably
confirm the appointment of the chair) should be held. I still believe the
chair should be a member by normal means. However, participation in the
EC counts for participation in a WG. So if the hibernating chair is
keeping up, this counts. However, the bottom line is what good is a chair
without any members? We need a restart process for a hibernating WG which
develops a membership. I think the chair should achieve membership
through whatever process we define for other members. I don’t think
my current rule would prevent Paul from appointing say Ken as an interim
chair. But once the WG is up and running again, if they have not held
elections in more than 2 years I think they should have elections anyway.
Honestly,
these are just some rambling thoughts. I don’t intend to change any
text in my currently proposed rules change, since it was approved for
distribution in its current form. I hope to start the ballot by the end
of the week. What I ask is that you resurface this issue at that time so
it get incorporated in the comments on the ballot. Then we can have a more
formal discussion. It is a little tricky for me to track pre-ballot
comments, so I’d like to reintroduce this once the ballot begins.
Robert
D. Love [rdlove@nc.rr.com] Tue
3/25/2003 3:41 PM
Mat,
I have one proposed change to your "proposed rules" based on the
scenario of someone "coming out of retirement" to chair a new
WG. If we look at the present situation for 802.20, your rules could bar
Ken Alonge, the chair of the hibernating 802.10 from becoming the 802.20 chair
because he would be "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." Obviously, that
would not be the case for Ken.
My
recommendation would be to change the words "who is not a member in good
standing in IEEE 802,..." to "who has never established membership or
is not presently a member in good standing in IEEE 802,..." or words
to this effect.
Ken
Alonge [kennyg698@yahoo.com] Fri
3/14/2003 11:28 AM
Mat-
I
think two of the big differences is that:
1)
for a hibernating working group you have a Chair who is familiar with the
802 processes
2) there
will be two classes of "members" of the un-hibernated group at the
first few meetings -- those that participated in the group before hibernation,
and those that joined when the group came out of hibernation. p; Maybe
some accommodation needs to be made for the former class to have voting rights
immediately.
Also,
the Chair in this case will need the ability to make unencumbered motions
(i.e., not have to seek out Exec members to move and second WG motions) to
the Exec for items concerning the un-hibernated working
group's tasks (e.g., PARs, balloting, etc).
Just
some thoughts - Ken
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