| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Hi everyone,
I have studied the results of this ballot, and decided to hold off with any suggested resolutions until I have some face to face conversations with people. I don’t think it will be hard to resolve, but the actual balloted file is quite large, and I don’t want to send out an update till I’m very sure I’ve addressed everyone’s concerns. I will be holding a meeting on the P&P where this resolution will be discussed – Sunday July 20 starting at 7 PM. Check the schedule for the room.
Thanks,
Mat
Matthew Sherman -----Original Message-----
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
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)
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 AbbreviationsCSSC: CS Standards Committees, i.e. SAB, Sponsors, WGs, SGs SEC: Sponsor Executive Committee
3.2 DefinitionsSponsor: 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 OverviewThe 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 CommitteeCSSCs, 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 -----Original Message-----
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
|