Re: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on Executive Committee Title
I never had the source file for the P&P.
When I was the Recording Secretary, the rules
were maintained by the Vice Chair, just as they
are now.
Howard
Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> Matt, I think Kelly McClellan generated that diagram, and he probably
> passed it on to Howard Frazier at some point.
>
>
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing - SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> (425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: mjsherman@research.att.com; stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
>
>
>
> I have an old 11/98 MS Word copy but the figures are imported in that,
> and don't seem to be editable.
>
>
>
> --Bob Grow
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mjsherman@research.att.com [mailto:mjsherman@research.att.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:29 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
> Does anyone know where the original files are for Figures 1 and in the
> LMSC P&P are? I need to edit them but can?t find the source files.
>
>
>
> Mat
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman
> Vice Chair, IEEE 802
> Technology Consultant
> Communications Technology Research
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> Room B255, Building 103
> 180 Park Avenue
> P.O. Box 971
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:06 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++ Ballot on
> Executive Committee Title
>
>
>
> Dear EC members,
>
>
>
> First my apologies for not reporting the final results of this ballot
> sooner. The ballot failed, mostly due to lack of response. Below,
> please find input material for comment resolution on the ballot.
> Specifically please find 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 omissions in this material!
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ballot Results ? Closed 5/14/03 11:59 PM EDT
>
>
>
> 00 Paul Nikolich DIS Comments
> Received
>
> 01 Geoff Thompson DIS Comments
> Received
>
> 02 Matthew Sherman DNV
>
> 03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
>
> 04 Bob O'Hara APR
>
> 05 Bill Quackenbush ABS Comments Received
>
> 06 Tony Jeffree APR
>
> 07 Bob Grow DNV
>
> 08 Stuart Kerry DNV
>
> 09 Bob Heile DNV
>
> 10 Roger Marks APR
>
> 11 Mike Takefman APR
>
> 12 Carl Stevenson APR Comments Received
>
> 13 Jim Lansford DNV
>
> XX Reza Arefi Comments Received
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> totals: 5 APR 2 DIS 1 ABS 6 DNV
>
>
>
> 10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ballot comments:
>
>
>
> Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net] Thu
> 5/15/2003 10:52 PM
>
>
>
> Geoff,
>
>
>
> The long and the short answers are the same, none.
>
>
>
> You can classify my "abstain" vote as whimsical. I am not ready to vote
>
> "approve" as there are some issues I believe need to be resolved. I am
>
> in general agreement with the goal of the proposed change (consistency),
>
> but it become unclear, at least to me, as to whether the Exec should be
>
> called the Executive Committee (or EC) or the Sponsor Executive
>
> Committee (or SEC) to agree with IEEE standards terminology. And so not
>
> having a strong negative comment against the proposal I decided to vote
>
> "abstain" fully knowing that is was equivalent to a "disapprove".
>
>
>
> I was wondering if someone would ask about my weird vote :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Geoff Thompson
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Thu
> 5/15/2003 11:49 AM
>
>
>
> Let's see,
>
>
>
> In mail ballots, abstains go in the denominator along with Approve,
>
> Disapprove, and DNV
>
> but they don't go in the numerator.
>
>
>
> So what is the (engineering, not political) difference between this and a
>
> disapprove?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Quackenbush [billq@attglobal.net] Thu
> 5/15/2003 6:32 AM
>
>
>
> I vote Abstain with the following comments.
>
>
>
> 1) I agree that the reference to the "Executive Committee" should be
>
> consistent throughout the P&P. However, I do not have a strong
>
> preference as whether that reference should be "EC", "SEC", "Executive
>
> Committee" or "Sponsor Executive Committee". I do believe that what
>
> ever the standard reference is, it should agree with the terminology for
>
> an IEEE standards developing committee.
>
>
>
> 2) The use of abreviations is inconsistent in the P&P. "WG" is used
>
> only in sections 5.1.5.2.3 and 5.3 and Procedure 2, otherwise "Working
>
> Group" is used. "TAG" and "Technical Advisory Group" are both used
>
> throughout the P&P with no obvious pattern. "SG" is used only in Section
>
> 5.3, otherwise "Study Group" is used. We need a rule on abreviation use.
>
>
>
> 3) The term "Sponsor Executive Committee" appears in both Figures 1 and
>
> 2 on page 3. It would appear that these should be changed to "Executive
>
> Committee" to be consistent with the rest of this proposed change.
>
>
>
> 4) "EC" is used without definition in the next to last paragraph of
>
> section 2. "EC" is not defined until section 3. "EC" should not be
>
> used before it is defined.
>
>
>
>
>
> Geoff Thompson
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Wed
> 5/14/2003 4:33 PM
>
>
>
> Roger-
>
>
>
> You may be right.
>
> I need to look into it in terms of documentation.
>
> My experience has always been (at the IEEE level) that they look to The
>
> Sponsor, the person, as being ultimately responsible rather than as a
>
> representative of a governing body.
>
>
>
> If this is the case then our procedures should be structured so that our
>
> leadership organization is recognizable to higher powers, as well as have
>
> the structure that we wish it to have.
>
>
>
> That's all. No ulterior motive, just want the system to be able to hold up
>
> under stress should it ever arrive.
>
>
>
>
>
> Roger B. Marks [r.b.marks@ieee.org] Wed
> 5/14/2003 2:25 PM
>
>
>
> Geoff,
>
>
>
> Can you explain what you mean when you say that the Computer Society
>
> and IEEE-SA "don't recognize anything other than 'Sponsor', the
>
> person (Nikolich)"? My understanding is that the sponsor of 802
>
> standards projects is the LMSC, not the LMSC Chair.
>
>
>
> The IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws (5.2.2) says "Sponsors of IEEE
>
> standards projects are committees" and provides a lot more detail.
>
>
>
> The RevCom submittal form asks the question:
>
> "4. SPONSOR (Full name of society/committee)"
>
>
>
> The PAR form asks:
>
> "Name of Sponsoring Society and Committee"
>
>
>
> So I think that the Sponsor is not a person.
>
>
>
>
>
> Geoff Thompson
> [gthompso@nortelnetworks.com] Wed
> 5/14/2003 1:48 PM
>
>
>
> I support the Nikolich comment regarding the introduction of yet another
> new term "EC" (In my mind, the term "EC" is stuck at the name for
> "Educational Comics", the original name of the entity that published MAD
> Comix/Magazine)
>
> Further, I am uncertain that the shuffling that this does reflects the
> actual organization that is required of us by the Computer Society and
> IEEE-SA. It is my understanding that they don't recognize anything other
> than "Sponsor", the person (Nikolich). This fact (or lack thereof) needs
> to be explained in all of this.
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul Nikolich [paul.nikolich@att.net]
> Sat 5/10/2003 2:08 PM
>
>
>
> Comment: It is not necessary to introduce the acronym 'EC' into the
> document. 'Executive Committee' should be spelled out in full whever it
> is used. If the acronym 'EC' is replaced by 'Executive Committee' in
> the document, I will change my vote to APPROVE.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stevenson, Carl R (Carl)
> [carlstevenson@agere.com] Wed 5/7/2003 4:56 AM
>
>
>
> Approve with a comment - make sure that the TAG rules change text contains
>
> all of the updates as it is incorporated.
>
>
>
>
>
> Reza Arefi [reza@arraycomm.com] Mon
> 4/14/2003 1:26 PM
>
>
>
> Figure 1 and Figure 2 also need to be modified to reflect the change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Relevant material in CS SAB P&P:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.1 Abbreviations
>
> CSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs
>
> SEC: Sponsor Executive Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.2 Definitions
>
> Sponsor: A group of individuals who have a professed interest in the
> development of standards (either by direct participation or by the
> process of review) In technological areas that fall under the general
> scope of interest of the Computer Society.
>
> Sponsor Balloting Body: Eligible IEEE or CS-affiliate members, SA
> members, invited experts, ORs, and Organizational Entities who have
> returned a properly completed Invitation to Ballot within the
> established deadline, on a specific draft standard.
>
> Sponsor Executive Committee: A subcommittee of a Sponsor that has been
> delegated certain duties and responsibilities by the Sponsor's P&P.
>
>
>
>
> 4.1 Overview
>
> The IEEE standards development process includes two volunteer groups: a
> Sponsor, who supervises all phases of the development and maintenance of
> a standard, and a standards developing committee such as a WG or SG,
> which is responsible to the Sponsor, and which develops the draft
> standard. A draft standard is forwarded to the IEEE Standards Board by
> the Sponsor for action once it has met the IEEE approval criteria.
>
> The development of standards in the CS is governed by a committee
> structure comprising the SAB at the highest level, to which report
> Sponsors. Reporting to these Sponsors are WGs which may be responsible
> for one or more standards projects [large Sponsors, e.g. those with more
> than 10 WGs, may choose to form Steering Committees responsible for a
> number WGs with closely related scope and interests]. In turn, WGs may
> choose to form subcommittees to deal with specific issues, such as a
> particular document, or a chapter in a document.
>
>
> 4.16 Executive Committee
>
> CSSCs, in their P&Ps, may delegate to a subcommittee the exercise of any
> of their rights and responsibilities. However the NHL committee shall
> look to the CSSC itself, and not to the subsidiary committee, as the
> responsible committee.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Sherman
> Vice Chair, IEEE 802
> Technology Consultant
> Communications Technology Research
> AT&T Labs - Shannon Laboratory
> Room B255, Building 103
> 180 Park Avenue
> P.O. Box 971
> Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971
> Phone: +1 (973) 236-6925
> Fax: +1 (973) 360-5877
> EMAIL: mjsherman@att.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
> Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 8:21 AM
> To: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
> Subject: [802SEC] Current results for +++ LMSC P&P Revision Ballot +++
> Ballot on Executive Committee Title
>
>
>
> Dear EC members,
>
>
>
> Below is the status on the LMSC P&P Revision Ballot on Executive
> Committee Title. The ballot closes May 14, 2003 11:59 PM EDT. This is a
> few days away. I probably will NOT send out another reminder prior to
> the end of the ballot since I am tied up at the 802.11 interim this
> week. 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. 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 5/10/03
>
>
>
> 00 Paul Nikolich DIS Comments
> Received
>
> 01 Geoff Thompson DNV
>
> 02 Matthew Sherman DNV
>
> 03 Buzz Rigsbee DNV
>
> 04 Bob O'Hara APR
>
> 05 Bill Quackenbush DNV
>
> 06 Tony Jeffree APR
>
> 07 Bob Grow DNV
>
> 08 Stuart Kerry DNV
>
> 09 Bob Heile DNV
>
> 10 Roger Marks DNV
>
> 11 Mike Takefman APR
>
> 12 Carl Stevenson APR Comments Received
>
> 13 Jim Lansford DNV
>
> XX Reza Arefi Comments Received
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> totals: 4 APR 1 DIS 0 ABS 9 DNV
>
>
>
> 10 APPROVES (2/3 majority) are required to PASS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>