Geoff,
Thanks for the inputs. I will double check everything you have mentioned. But remember at this point it is an editorial exercise. I have to stick to the approve text. If you want changes that aren’t in the approved text, that can be done, but requires another ballot L
Talk to you soon,
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: Geoff Thompson
[mailto:gthompso@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003
12:23 AM
To: Sherman,Matthew J (Matthew)
Cc: stds-802-sec@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Draft update
for LMSC P&P as of 7/25/03
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:
There is no parallel requirement that the appellee brief be copied to the appellant.
3) re:
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
4) re:
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:
....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:
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