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

[802SEC] Ballot resolution inputs for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Appeals Process



Hi Everyone,

 

This e-mail contains input for the ballot resolution of Appeals Process P&P revision ballot.  Specifically, this document contains the following:

 

1)     Results of ballot

2)     Comments received on the ballot

3)     Known relevant rules from CS SAB and SA

 

As always, please identify any errors or admission in this material!  Note that this ballot resolution will also draw from the procedures drawn up to handle the 802.20 appeals in progress.  Proposed resolutions on this ballot will be forth coming, but may not be available much before the San Francisco meeting.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear EC members,

 

Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision Ballot on Appeals Process.  The ballot closed May 7, 2003 11:59 PM EDT. Please identify any inaccuracies you detect in my status report. 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 before comment resolution on this ballot occurs.

 

Best Regards,

 

Mat

                                   

 

Ballot Results and comments as of 5/8/03

 

00 Paul Nikolich                   DIS                   Comments Provided      

01 Geoff Thompson                  DIS                   Comments Provided    

02 Matthew Sherman                                 DNV

03 Buzz Rigsbee                                    DNV    

04 Bob O'Hara                                      DNV     

05 Bill Quackenbush                DIS                   Comments Provided  

06 Tony Jeffree                    DIS                   Comments Provided

07 Bob Grow                        DIS                   Comments Provided

08 Stuart Kerry                                    DNV

09 Bob Heile                                       DNV

10 Roger Marks                                     DNV

11 Mike Takefman                                   DNV  

12 Carl Stevenson          APR                           Comments Provided

13 Jim Lansford                                    DNV  

 

-------------------------------------------------------

            totals:      1 APR   5 DIS   0 ABS   8 DNV

 

10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.

Ballot FAILS pending comment resolution.

 

 

 

 

Ballot Comments:

 

 

 

Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net]                          Wed 5/7/2003 11:06 PM

 

Section: 3.7                  Comment Type: E                     Part of No vote: N

Comment / Explanation: In the first sentence of the section, change "it should be" to "it is"

Recommended Change: See comment

 

Section: 3.7                  Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: The individual may decide to not proceed with a formal complaint

Recommended Change: Insert before the phrase" the following formal procedure shall be invoked" at the end of the last sentence in the section "and a formal complaint is filed"

 

Section:  3.7.1              Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: I have no idea what the phrases "in good standing with the LMSC" and "have achieved status through attendance" mean in this context.

Recommended Change: Clarify

 

Section: 3.7.2               Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: As written the phrase "including any adverse effects" in the second sentence appears to refer to adverse effects of the objection which I do not believe is the intent.

Recommended Change: Fix

 

Section: 3.7.2               Comment Type: E                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: Use of the term "objection" is problematic.

Recommended Change: Change "objection" to "issue" or "complaint" throughout the document as appropriate

 

Section: 3.7.2               Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: In the sentence "The appellant shall include complete documentation of all statements in the complaint.", whose statements and statements about what are being referred to?

Recommended Change: Clarify

 

Section: 3.7.3               Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: To what statements does the phrase "all statements" in the last sentence of the section refer?  Whose statements and about what?

Recommended Change: Clarify

 

Section: 3.7.4               Comment Type: S                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: At the end of the first sentence of the section change the phrase "made in the dispute" to "made in the process of resolving the dispute"

Recommended Change: See comment

 

Section: 3.7.4               Comment Type: E                     Part of No vote: Y

Comment / Explanation: At the beginning of the second sentence of the section insert "of the panel" after the phrase "At least two members" for greater clarity.

Recommended Change: See comment

 

Section: 3.7.5               Comment Type: E                     Part of No vote: N

Comment / Explanation: In the first sentence of the section insert "and" after "exceptional circumstances".

Recommended Change: See comment

 

 

 

Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net]                             Wed 5/7/2003 8:31 AM

 

I vote disapprove.  I concur with Bob Grow's comments with the following additional editorial comment:

-last sentence of 3.7.2 Complaint: replace 'LMSC plenary meeting' with LMSC plenary session'

 

 

 

Stevenson, Carl R (Carl) [carlstevenson@agere.com]                           Wed 5/7/2003 5:53 AM

 

Approve, with the hope that there will be some additional review and consideration

of anyone's ideas for potential improvements before final adoption at the July plenary.

 

 

Tony Jeffree [tony@jeffree.co.uk]                                 Wed 5/7/2003 12:56 AM

 

Comment:

In 3,7.1, it is not clear to me what "
and have achieved status through attendance" means. I think that the intent is (and should be) "and are current voting members of an 802 Working Group/TAG".

This again highlights the fact that we don't have any convenient definition in the P&P of what it means to be a member of 802 (as distinct from a member of one of its groups).

 

 

 

Grow, Bob [bob.grow@intel.com]                           Mon 4/7/2003 5:40 PM

 

3.7.1  Appeals pool

 

Comment:  I don't know what "in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance" means.  Section 4 defines the LMSC members as the SEC and the sponsor ballot pools.  There is no attendance requirement for being in a sponsor ballot pool.  Therefore, I assume the intent was a member in good standing of an active 802 WG/TAG. 

 

I also think a broader pool is important as recommended by Geoff, but current WG officers is rather vague because of the inconsistent WG structure across 802.  Is the 802.11 Publicity Chair included?  Are TF chairs included?  Are TF vice chairs included?  This probably needs to be limited to the WG officers that must be and are confirmed by the SEC.

 

The use of the word "may" is a problem also.  This implies that a list will be maintained of who is in the appeals pool and who isn't.  It is best to define who is in and who is out without the option of may.

 

Suggested Remedy:  The appeals pools consists of:

a.  Current members in good standing of the SEC who have attended both the opening and closing SEC meetings at two of the last four plenary sessions.

b.  Former members of the SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member status through attendance.

c.  Current WG/TAG Vice Chairs confirmed by the SEC who are members in good standing of an active WG/TAG having qualified for member status through attendance.

 

 

3.7.2 Compliant

 

Comment:  The use of "(Secretary)" is I fear an opening to future ambiguity. 

 

Suggested Remedy:  Use "SEC Recording Secretary" for all references.

 

 

3.7.4  Appeals panel

 

Comment:  I think the last line should have been edited differently from the source.  The text on which this is based refers the matter to the Standards Board for appointment of the panel.  The SA Operations Manual lets the same person making initial appointments to the panel make arbitrary appointments when the parties to the appeal can't agree on the panel.  For us, I believe the escalation should be to the entire SEC when a panel can't be chosen, not to the Computer Society.  I bet the SAB would throw it back if no sponsor hearing was conducted. 

 

Suggested Remedy:  To allow the SEC to arbitrarily appoint a panel or to hear the case, I recommend replacing "Computer Society Standards Activity with "the matter shall be referred to the SEC for consideration."

 

 

3.7.5  Conduct of the Hearing

 

Comment:  Though the Robert's Rules paragraph is identical to other IEEE rules, I find it a problem.   We do not mandate that our groups use any specific version of Roberts Rules [sic] (see 5.1.4).  Either we need to tighten up 5.1.4 to be the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (as Geoff suggested), or this needs to be rewritten to recognize that a WG may have chosen another edition of Robert's Rules for their operation.  In either case, since most of our appeals come WG/TAG and they have their own rules, we need to also recognize any WG/TAG rules that override Robert's.

 

Suggested Remedy:  Change the last paragraph of 3.7.5 to read: "The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein, nor covered within the rules of the group for the action under appeal."

Change the last sentence of 5.1.4 to read:  "The current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be used in combination with these operating rules to achieve this balance."

 

3.7.7  Request for Re-hearing

Comment:  The last sentence has been inappropriately edited, and could be improved over its original source.  As written if one complains about a re-hearing, then it is referred to the higher body.  The intent is only when the decision is to accept the decision of the panel that it is referred to the higher body.

 

Suggested Remedy:  Change the last sentence of the paragraph to read:  "If the decision of the SEC is to adopt the report of the appeals panel, further appeals shall be referred to the Computer Society SAB."

 

 

 

 

Geoff Thompson [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]                                  Mon 4/7/2003 12:49 PM

 

My comments:

In 3.7.1 Replace the text:

Former SEC members who are in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance may also be included in the appeals pool.

With the text:

Former SEC members who are in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance may also be included in the appeals pool. Current Working Group elected officers who are in good standing with the LMSC and have achieved status through attendance may also be included in the appeals pool.

In 3.7.5 Replace the text:

Robert’s Rules of Order (latest edition) shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein.

With the text (per the citation guidelines in RROONR):

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply to questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered herein.

 

 

 

 

 

Relevant material in CS SAB P&P:

 

 

 

 

3.1 Abbreviations

 

CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs

 

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.

 

4.8.3.3 Appeal, Removal and Announcement

Any Officer suspended or removed against their wishes has the option of appeal. The appeal shall be made to the CSSC (if the action was taken by the CSSC), then to the NHL committee, then to the Sponsor, then to the SAB, and then to the CS Board of Governors. If an individual so suspended or removed provides notice in writing within ten (10) days to CS VP of Standards that an appeal will be made, public announcement of a change of Officer shall not take place until after the appeal has been heard and a decision rendered.

4.14 Conflicts between CSSCs and Other SDO WGs

 

  •     (f) Actively encourage individuals within one SDO to participate in the other SDOs activities. Whenever practical, given the differing membership requirements, individuals within the SDO should be actively encouraged to participate in CS standards activities, and IEEE working group members should be actively encouraged to participate in the SDO's standards activities. This effort should include education on each organization's rules and procedures. CS working groups are required to follow IEEE rules, and SDO working groups are required to follow the SDO's rules. Alleged violations of an organization's rules shall be dealt with through that organization's appeals process and mechanisms for addressing such issues. In the case of the CS, such allegations shall be made first to the WG or SG, then to the Sponsor of the working group, then to the SAB, then to the IEEESB. The Sponsor may choose to sponsor multiple PARs covering the same problem space.

 

9.0 APPEALS

9.1 Purpose

Persons who have directly and materially affected interests and who have been or will be adversely affected by a standard within a CSSC's jurisdiction, or by the lack thereof, shall have the right to appeal procedural actions or inaction of the committee or its officers. Appeals first shall be made to the Chair of the CSSC, before escalation to the next higher level committee. [Every attempt should be made to resolve concerns informally, since it should be recognized that a formal appeals process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect the goodwill and cooperative relationships between and among persons. If the informal attempts to resolve a concern are unsuccessful, the following formal procedure shall be invoked.]

9.2 Complaint

The appellant shall file a written complaint with the CSSC Chair as soon as possible after an action, but not later than thirty (30) days after the appellant knew, or reasonably should have known, of the action to be appealed. The complaint shall state: the nature of the objection(s), including any adverse affects; the sections(s) of those procedures or the standard(s) that are at issue; actions or inaction that are at issue; and the specific remedialaction(s) that would satisfy the appellant's concerns. Previous efforts to resolve the objection(s) and the outcome of each shall be noted, and the official record of all challenged actions shall be included.

9.3 Response

 Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the complaint, the   respondent   (Chair, Vice-Chair or Secretary) shall respond in writing to the appellant, specifically addressing each allegation of fact in the complaint to the extent of the respondent's knowledge.

9.4 Hearing

 If the appellant and the respondent are unable to resolve the   written   complaint in a manner consistent with these procedures, the Chair or the Secretary of the CSSC shall schedule a hearing with an appeals panel on a date agreeable to all participants, giving at least ten (10) working days notice.

9.5 Appeals Panel

 The appeals panel shall consist of three (3) individuals who have not been directly involved in the matter in dispute and who will not be materially or directly affected by any decision made, or to be made, in the dispute. At least two (2) members shall be acceptable to the appellant and at least two(2) shall be acceptable to the respondent.

9.6 Conduct of the Hearing

 The appellant has the burden of documenting adverse effects,   improper   actions or inaction, and the efficacy of the requested remedial action. The respondent has the burden of demonstrating that the CSSC and the officers took all actions in compliance with these procedures, and that the requested remedial action would be ineffective or detrimental. Each party may adduce other pertinent arguments, and members of the appeals panel may address questions to individuals.

9.7 Decision

 The appeals panel shall render its decision in writing within   thirty   (30) days, stating findings of fact and conclusions, with reasons therefor, based on a preponderance of the evidence. Consideration may be given to the following positions, among others, in formulating the decision:

  •     (a) Finding for the appellant, remanding the action to the CSSC or the NHL committee with a specific statement of the issues and facts in regard to which fair and equitable action was not taken.
  •         (b) Finding for the respondent, with a specific statement of the facts that demonstrate fair and equitable treatment of the appellant and the appellant's objections
  •     (c) Finding that new, substantive evidence has been introduced, and remanding the entire action to the CSSC or the NHL committee for appropriate reconsideration.

9.8 Further Appeal

 If the appellant gives notice that further appeal is intended, a full record of the complaint, response, hearing and decision shall be submitted to the Chair of the NHL committee. The appeal may proceed through each level of committee up to and including the SAB, for standards projects which have not yet been approved by the IEEE Standards Board. For Projects which have already been approved by the IEEE Standards Board, the appeals process described in the IEEE Standards Operations Manual [Ref. 5] and IEEE Standards Board Bylaws [Ref. 13] shall apply, and shall be directed to the IEEE Standards Board.

10.0 INTERPRETATIONS

Requests for interpretations of this document shall be directed to the CSVP for Standards. The CS VP for Standards, or delegate, shall respond to the request within thirty (30) days of receipt. Such response shall indicate either an interpretation, or a specified time limit when such an interpretation will be forthcoming. The time limit shall be no longer than is reasonable to allow consideration of and recommendations on the issue by, for example, the Policies and Procedures Committee of the SAB. Interpretations offered by the CS VP of standards, either directly, or on the recommendation of the SAB Policies and Procedures Committee, are subject to the concurrence of the SAB, should the requester of the interpretation choose to appeal the interpretation.

 

Relevant content from IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD OPERATIONS MANUAL

 

 

5.1.1 Responsibilities of the Sponsor

The Sponsor shall be responsible for the development and coordination of the standards project, and for

supervising the standards project from inception to completion. The Sponsor also shall be responsible for

the maintenance of standards after their approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board. As part of this

responsibility, each Sponsor shall operate in accordance with a written set of policies and procedures (P &

P). Such P & P shall not be in conflict with the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual. Sponsors

should note that there are model operating procedures available for adoption by the Sponsor.

In the case of a Sponsor that is a committee of an IEEE Society, the Society may develop a common set of P

& P for standards development that is applicable to all Sponsors in that Society. Individual Sponsors within

the Society may have specific P & Ps in addition, but these shall not be in conflict with the Society P & P.

The P&P for the Sponsor shall define the process by which the Sponsor handles appeals (see subclause 5.4

of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws and 5.8).

 

 

5.4.3.2 Resolution of comments, objections, and negative votes

The Sponsor shall make every attempt to resolve comments, objections, and negative votes that are

accompanied by comments. Comments that advocate changes in the document, whether technical or

editorial, may be accepted, revised, or rejected. It should be borne in mind that documents are professionally

edited prior to publication.

Comments received before the close of ballot from persons who are not in the balloting group require

acknowledgement sent to the commentor and shall be presented to the comment resolution group for

consideration. Comments received after the close of ballot will be forwarded to the Sponsor for

consideration at the next update of the standard. If a comment is received as a result of a public review

process, that comment will be addressed by the Sponsor and a disposition returned to the commentor, along

with information concerning their right of appeal.

 

 

8.1 Standards

Upon approval by the IEEE-SA Standards Board, the standard shall be published as an IEEE standard. The

Sponsor shall be notified of the approval. Balloters with unresolved negative ballot comments shall be

informed of the approval and of their right to appeal.

 

 

 

Relevant content from IEEE-SA STANDARDS BOARD BYLAWS

 

 

5.4 Appeals

Persons who have directly and materially affected interests and who have been, or could reasonably be

expected to be, adversely affected by a standard within the IEEE’s jurisdiction, or by the lack thereof, shall

have the right to appeal substantive technical or procedural actions or inaction of the committee, provided

a) That the appellant shall have exhausted the appeals procedures of any relevant subordinate

committees prior to filing an appeal with the IEEE-SA Standards Board; and

b) That technically based appeals, or technical elements of appeals, shall be resolved at or below the

Sponsor level.

Further instructions concerning appeals procedure can be found in subclause 5.8 of the IEEE-SA Standards

Board Operations Manual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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