Re: [802SEC] Draft update for LMSC P&P as of 7/25/03

[Geoff Thompson <gthompso@nortelnetworks.com>]

Mat-

Re: The appeals process

1) re:

3.7 Appeal and complaint process

Every attempt should be made to resolve concerns informally, since it is recognized that a formal appeals process has a tendency to negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect the goodwill and cooperative relationships between and among persons.

It isn't "that a formal appeals process has a tendency to
negatively, and sometimes permanently, affect...goodwill"

It isn't the process that affects goodwill.
It is either the "appeal" or the "exercise of the appeals
process" that does the deed.

2)
re:

  

        

3.7.3

There is no parallel requirement that the appellee brief be copied to the appellant.

3)
re:

  

        

3.7.4

If the parties to the appeal cannot agree on an appeals panel within a reasonable amount of time, the whole matter shall be referred to the full EC for Consideration.

I don't know what this means. does it mean that the entire EC is the
appeals panel or does it mean that the entire EC considers whether to
kick it up to the SAB or ???

This should be pretty straight-forward. There should be a standing list
of people in the appeals pool and any time there is a threat of an appeal
"somebody" (who?) should cross off the disqualified members of
the pool.

Also, it doesn't say how the chair of the panel is chosen. That needs to
be specified.
I can think of 2 reasonable possibilities

        

a) The
party that is acceptable to each side

        

b) That it
is the right of the EC Chair to choose.

4)
re:

  

        

3.7.5
The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order
Newly Revised (latest edition) shall apply to questions of parliamentary
procedure for the hearing not covered herein.

should be:
The appeals panel chair shall consult rules contained in the current
edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (latest edition) for
questions of parliamentary procedure for the hearing not covered
herein.

5)
re:

  

        

3.7.6
....with reasons there for,
should be:
....with reasons therefore,

and also a/b/c makes no mention of disposition of whatever requests were
made for remedial action.

6) re:

  

3.7.7
There seems to be no requirement that if there is a request for a
rehearing that there be some rationale required to justify the
rehearing.

Cheers,

Geoff

At 11:05 PM 10/12/2003 -0400, mjsherman@research.att.com wrote:

Hi Everyone,

Sorry things have taken so long but I ve been otherwise occupied lately.

Attached please find a draft of the LMSC P&P which includes all revisions approved as of 7/25/03.  It is redlined to highlight the changes. Please feel free to examine it and identify any errors in the editing you may find to me.  I plan to release the final version of this document in about 2 weeks.

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

 Draft_LMSC_P&P_-_July_2003_R0.pdf